| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Bill (Newfie), If a criminal were to break into your home at night, would you rather have a firearm or no firearm? You act as though Newfoundland is devoid of violent crime. Might want to rethink that... In the year 2000, or every 100,000 citizens of Newfoundland, 925 fell victim to violent crime that comprises 1% of the population. And another 2,705 fell victim to crimes against their property, almost 3% of the population. Ref... http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000718/d000718a.htm Do as you will and I salute you, but don't pretend there is no risk. I don't keep a loaded gun in the house, nor do I carry. Rest assured however that I do not delude myself from reality. My God man, that Tramp character may someday show up in your home town and you best be prepared!  | ||
| Blake |
Rocket, You would do well to consult recent trends in violent/gun crime in London area. Not pretty from what I hear. (Message edited by blake on November 16, 2004) | ||
| Blake |
For Sean...
That after Britain made gun ownership a crime for law-abiding citizens. The criminals love it. | ||
| P0p0k0pf |
Tramp- ---------------------------------- 5'8 140 dooes NOt give you the right to pull a piece on someone bigger, if you're in a non-mugging style dispute. ----------------------------------- I agree- I think we misunderstood each other. To use a firearm for other than hunting, target shooting, and defense is to misuse it. A person who uses a firearm for power over another person for selfish benefit should not have a firearm. BTW-- it's 4-wheeled BMWs that I work with... <grin> Roc- You've made very good use of very few words- well said my friend! Anyone have a spare soapbox? Mine's worn out... | ||
| Redhatbuell |
Tramp, I guess I need to carry to protect my milch-toast @$$ from guys like you.  Actually I was taught that there is no such thing as a fair fight. That's why we're dropping 500 lbs bombs on guys with rifles a few hundred miles north of where I'm sitting right now. Of course I generally avoid putting myself in situations were a fight might break out. The best way to win a fight is not to get into one. I view my legally carried pistol the same way I view the tool kit in my tankbag...I hope I don't have to use it, but I'm ready if the need arises. I don't go looking for trouble, but God help it if it finds me. Oh, and smile when you call me Mary  | ||
| Unibear12r |
Perfectly stated Redhat-far better than I could have. The roads we travel often take us through the worst of society with trouble sometimes finding us. Keep in mind that the stats you all hear about are for just a year average. Put year by year together over a lifetime and you find that you have a large chance of being the victim of a violent crime at least once in your lifetime.Its very unlikely to happen to me again but like I said its been tried on me before and failed (with no shots fired thankfully) and if there is a next time I intend to do whatever it takes to stop it again. Should I sign this Mary? Oh btw I've had idiots wave guns at me while driveing down the road too. I was packing but no C-phone and never a cop when you need one eh? Ticked me off to no end too. (Message edited by unibear12r on November 17, 2004) | ||
| Court |
Masab Ayoob is the authority on personal concealed carry. Best read is perhaps "In the Gravest Extreme". In a nutshell, he'd tell you that carrying a weapon obligates one to a much HIGHER duty to take crap. I think he used the example, if you are walking down the street and someone walks up, spits in your wife's face and calls her a name. Without the weapon, you'd be within your "rights" to kick the fellows butt. With a weapon, you take it and walk away. The unfortunate truth is that some folks who carry seem hellbent on believing they are imbued with some obligation to right the world's wrongs and mistake crummy, impolite behavior as life threatening. By the way, I'll rapidly concede that there are no "answers" to this discussion. Differing folks, differing backgrounds and situations, will dictate divergent viewpoints. I don't have to agree with all to learn. Court | ||
| Rocketman |
Blake, those are extremely isolated incidents, usually set about due to turf wars between rival drug gangs. I do London often, though I admit to not visiting her bowels of deprivation unless by accident, and like any large city, excepting places such as and similar to Singapore, they all have their 'no go' areas. Mind you, last time I looked I saw no one sporting a spear down Southwark High Street. Incidentally, the carrying of knives is a specific offense here too. As for bars, bats or sticks, or whatever, they fall under a more general area known as 'offensive weapons' and if a policeman deems it so, you can be arrested and charged if you are found with them on your person. A magistrate will probably 'side' with the view of the arresting police officer as to why you were arrested for carrying whatever it is they deemed offensive, so you will get your arse kicked in court. Anyway, no one has said it better here about gun ownership than Sporty E. My sentiments entirely. Rocket | ||
| Redhatbuell |
Court Once again, you have hit the nail on the head. My wife and I talked it through a long time ago and we came to the conclusion that nothing we own is worth a human life: mine, her's or anyone else's. You want my wallet, take it, I can get another and besides which I'm married and thus carry no cash Of course, if I (as a reasonable person...given the subject's actions...) take what you're doing as threat to me and mine...you had better believe that that is one fight I'm going to win. I'm pretty laid back anyway. I heard a pastor one time point out that meekness is not weakness, it is controlled strength. | ||
| Signguyxb12 |
This is the most intelligent discussion on guns i have ever heard....on both sides | ||
| Rek |
Here's and interesting news brief. The Illinois House voted 85 to 30 Tuesday, overriding the anti-gun governor's veto of SB 2165, which would protect citizens from local anti-gun ordinances if they use a firearm to defend themselves or their families. The legislation was inspired by the case of Wilmette resident Hale DeMar, who shot a burglar in his home with a handgun, despite the city's handgun ban. (Message edited by rek on November 17, 2004) | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
ok so they voted for or aginst hand guns? | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Blake, Never said there were no violent crimes - just how do you justify a violent crimes. Most crimes committed around here are between people that know each other and not just random act of violence. Heated arguments that get out of hand, domestic violence. I think last year there were two murders and once again it was between persons that knew each other. My argument is against the need to "pack heat" to go to the corner store or just to go out in public. For the most part criminals here don't carry hand guns. August 2003 when I was in Detroit with Spidey and we stopped at a gas station to fill up, I walked in and there was bullet proof glass everywhere, the attendent was behind and closed in a small cage. This was things I only saw on TV - interesting but still very disturbing....Is this what our major cities have become. That we need to protect ourselves behind bullet proof glass and arm ourselves in order to live in certain areas. The most crime we get around here these days are break & entry and its usually people looking to sell the stolen goods so they can buy prescription and other kinds of drugs. Not very often the break ins occur when the person is at home either. My father in-law owns a 12ga shotgun that is in our home, I don't even know where the shells are kept if he even has any. However, if there was a threat the dog would get them first then me. Not that I would not resort to violent actions to protect, just I don't see the need to use a firearm. If somone broke into my home during the night I don't think I would even think of the gun until now, when I read these posts. Normally, I'd pick up the first large object that would be within reach. This supports a post made earlier in this thread. Once again I guess it has to do with the area for which you live in. Court does make a very good point in that carrying a gun brings a whole new higher "Duty of Care" to a situation. That would make an interesting read. No one really answered my question regarding "How would the law interpret someone using deadly force in self-defence?" If you and an attacker (mugger demanding your wallet) met on the street and you hauled out your 9mm Glock, shot the person dead. A few minutes later the police arrive - what would the outcome of that exchange bring? Would your arse be hauled through the legal system for months, possibly years for killing someone in self-defence until your found innocent? Your name in the papers, court costs, legal fees, a dead kid lying 6 ft under all because you would not give up your wallet. Despite the fact the attacker was committing a violent crime you still killed someone. I know we all like to talk tough at times but ultimately could you live with that for the rest of your life!! You know a gun can be a valuable tool, just as any other, if used by responsible persons. This discussion is not about your "Right to Bear Arms" it is about do you really need to "Pack Heat" Thats my question!!! | ||
| Rek |
Firebolt, here the rest of the clip. Rob "For the second time in a week," Waldron observed, "Illinois lawmakers showed some backbone in voting to override the governor's veto. This is a stunning victory for bipartisanship in the interest of community safety. Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back from the realm of political correctness to public safety. Having laws in effect that penalize honest citizens for defending themselves, their families and their homes from criminals is not simply bad policy, it is insidious. | ||
| Tramp |
um... sincere apologies for my (now that i reread it) post implying anyone carrying is a milquetoast. if i said that around most of my friends (many of 'em legally carry handguns) they'd each remove their pancake holster , set the piece down and roll their sleeves up, which i would not be surprised to find any of you all doing as well. my problem is WITH the actual milquetoasts who carry and sorta kinda 'go outta their way' to find confontation. THEY are the issue I have with constant-carry on non-LEOs again, very sincere apologies for my poorly stated point. and as i've said, i have carried in some major cities where crime, as opposed to hubrid brawling, was the issue, so i hear all y'all ...we now bring you back to your regularly scheduled debating | ||
| Tramp |
i guess one of the defining moments for me WAS when a young SE asiatic wigger ran me off the freeway in the west and flipped me off, for no reason other than to impress his friends. when i caught up with him (lane splitting in the backed-up exit traffic standstill) and yanked him out of the lowered accord with the 21" chrome rims, he pulled a piece. i proseeded to disarm his ••• and toss the piece out into the weeds before knocking his melon against his paint job about 20 times. not trying to sound badarse or anything, just an honest reaction that i would imagine many of you all would have. when i related the story proudly to my friends at the local MC clubhouse, they berated me for even starting with the clown, being his friends likely had weapons and 'what if he just shot you when you walked up?' talk. i got my ••• handed to me for doing such a stupid thing, and i was reminded that many of these young 'cong belong to the BTK (born to kill) and they specifically look for tougher-looking guys to ice for their initiations. ooooops. THAT's where my issues with constant carry come from. i AM VERY COGNIZANT of the fact that in a state of total gun control these BTK schmendricks would still have every and any gun they like. i do not, for one second, think anyone here is carrying for fear of possible brawls, and there IS something to be said for a deterrent for brawling i guess. who needs it? both sides absolutely feel some pain and often swap some blood or saliva (split knuckles against teeth) kinda stupid, really, and damnged risky in terms of disease. imagine hitting a guy a couple times 'til your knuckle and his mouth or nose bleed (usually first punch). now think about HIV, HEP a, b & c, etc. i guess i CAN make an argument for non-violent avoidance of THAT... gotta love any thread that makes ya think and maybe expand your views | ||
| Rek |
Well-spoken (written?) Newfie. The bottom-line is could you live w/ yourself if you put some punk kid in his grave? I don't think I could. Rob | ||
| Mikej |
A little info buried in this paper on the BTK and other groups/gangs: http://njrgc.greglaun.org/Issues/Spring2004/Nguyen.pdf | ||
| CJXB |
Others peoples opinions imposed on others. Nope, just folks opinions, nothing imposed, have your opinion, but don't impose it on me !! If others beliefs aren't the same as yours, doesn't make it wrong !! CJ  | ||
| CJXB |
spits in your wife's face and calls her a name. In that situation no husband of mine would have to pull a gun, he'd have to pull me off the MF as I'd be on him lickity split kicking his ever loving A$% !!! CJ | ||
| Rek |
CJ, you go girl (or is it GRRRil?) Rob | ||
| Blublak |
Newfie... Your question regarding how a lethal force application would be taken has a lot to do with the individual circumstances. So, let me make a few comments.. These may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,(within the US, I don't know Canadian law except for the basic common felonies we all seem to hold to) but for the most part, follow the same basic lines. Use of deadly force is only permissible when faced with same. Meaning, if someone breaks into your house and steals your TV, while your watching it, but in no way threatens you or your family with physical harm, you are not justified to use deadly force upon that person. Deadly force is not permitted to defend property, only life. (And before someone else says it.. yes, this is letter of the law kind of stuff, not reality).. In your example, you use the mugger scenario. Ok, let's look at that. Did said mugger (regardless of age) pose a legitimate threat to your life or the life of another? Technically, I could walk up to you and ask you to give me your wallet. If you give it too me, I have just robbed you, but in no way threatened you, so your use of deadly force is unwarranted. Now, same mugger with a knife and demands your wallet. Is deadly force permitted? Only if you can, in the view of a reasonable man, show honest fear for your life. Tramp, probably couldn't easily prove such fear. But BumbleBuell (my petite wife) could. So, Tramp (hope you don't mind me using you as an example T.) would be justified in taking this punk to task and pummeling him into a small greasy spot. Bumble, on the other hand, is justified to draw a gun and warn him back, shooting if needed to STOP THE THREAT. I'll get into that next. Now, Tramp has broken many of this dimwits bones and Bumble has put a .380 into his abdomen. (Separate time lines here, but being observed together). Tramp, when the boys in blue show up, will be taken into custody while the investigation is conducted. Witless ... Uh, WitNess interviews will be made and a determination of needed force will be made. If Tramp is found to have ended the threat and continued to pound this hapless idiot, then he could be charged with a variety of crimes stemming from the use of excessive force. Bumble on the other hand WILL be arrested immediately, and she had better repeat the sole mantra for such a situation. "I want a lawyer". The same investigative work will be done and a determination of criminal accountability will be made. Now, since she only shot once and the threat ended, she stands a good chance of being found justified in her use of force and released. Both our heroes here are now up for all the civil headaches you could ever ask for. As the idiot, will no doubt sue since his chosen career is mugging people and with his injuries he can't sustain himself, he'll need to blame someone and try to get a pay day out of the claim that you made it impossible for me to rob people, so now you owe him a living. Ok, on the "Stop" thing. In the US, no intelligent person ever 'Shoots to kill'. And you NEVER espouse such an action, doing this is actually considered premeditation to murder, since you've told anyone that would listen that you intend to kill someone first chance you get and you can be charged for it. You only are justified in the use of deadly force while the threat exists. Bumble (in the example) fired one of seven rounds her Sig holds, idiot stopped threatening and she stopped shooting. Yes, he lived (more people survive being shot with hand guns then TV want you to know about) and after some medical care will hopefully be sent to prison for his choice of actions. Tramp on the other hand, continued past the reasonable threat and therefore went from defending himself to assaulting the hapless individual. Yes Tramp, after stomping him unconscious, you're not supposed to revive him so you can continue hitting him.. But I understand the desire to do so. Now, if Bumble had shot him and he bled out, or she had hit a vital organ and he did not survive. She may (dependent solely on the DA in your jurisdiction) be charged with something like Manslaughter or she may be found justified. On the other hand, she sees him turn away or fall or whatever and she empties the gun into him (an extreme example) Now she can be charged with Murder, since she went beyond the defensive statues that she was using to protect herself to start with. In either case, if the schmuck dies.. She will still have to learn to live with herself. Phew.. Ok, does that help at all? Or did I just manage to muddy the waters even more? Later.. | ||
| Court |
One thing, learned from expereience (note: the lesson costs about 6,500 in lega fees) is that chasing someone down who has flipped you off, shaken (in the instant case) a ball bat at you and kicking their ••• is that all of a sudden YOU, striking the first blow, have committed the first crime of assault. I tend, absent any real or reasonably perceived threat, to allow stupid folks to continue on their ballistic journey through life content that someone, better equipped than I to foot 600/hr attorney fees, will provide them with a lesson. Course....that's just me. Court | ||
| Newfie_buell |
CJ, I could see you doing that. Thanks for the visual image and the chuckle today. This has indeed started to turn into a good one. I think the bottom line is that when threatened its much better to "TRY" (if time permits) to think of a peaceful resolution than to use "brute force and ignorance". Then again, I am sure there are times when that kind of force is necessary. If it is then you better be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions whether justified or not. Just remember monetary consquences are nothing compared to the emotional harm strong actions can cause. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
As for opinions - MINE ARE THE BEST!!!! Only Kidding CJ!!!!!! | ||
| Outrider |
This has been an interesting thread from a number of perspectives. However, it is most alarming that I have not seen anyone addressing the most significant issue and that concerns the legal possession of a concealed weapon (firearm). As concealed weapons permits are not issued in all States and not to everyone that applies for one in a State where they are issued and are not recognized in all States or municipalities... What happens if a person gets caught carrying much less using a firearm illegally? I know, but do you and is it really worth it? | ||
| Tramp |
actually, outrider, ijn NYS, most handgun carry permits ARE for concealed carry. they don't really want anyone openly displaying their weapons here. i got into a bit of an argument one day on line in my bank. guy ahead of me had his glock openly diplayed on his belt, shirt tucked in. i told him i didn't like seeing guns openly displayed at the abnk, and it's good way to have the bank guard draw down on ya. he told me he's 'on the job', and i told him i never saw him working up here. of course, he was a city cop. (This area's FULl of 'em, as The OC is the farthest county form the city where they can legally reside) i explained how easy it would be for me to grab his glock while he's staring fwd. at the teller's tits, and how a real criminal could do the same, and he should really leave out out in the car or 'cover your stuff' as is NYPD jargon.. at this point, sevral people began to agree with me, being i told him MY money's in that bank, and finally the house guard asked him to take it out to his car...NOW. ...what a dickhead | ||
| Uwgriz |
So if he's a city cop who's out of his jurisdiction, is he really "on the job?" If he's in a bank in my hometown, is he "on the job" because he's a cop, even if it's in NY? And if he's really "on the job", why is he out of the city? Is he on some investigation? If so, why is he doing his personal banking while "on the job?" (Message edited by uwgriz on November 17, 2004) | ||
| Rick_a |
That .50 does indeed use an AR-15 style lower receiver. The muzzle brake does a very good job...it hits like a 12GA Magnum slug, but with more of a push than a hard hit. Spectators are usually a little alarmed by the massive muzzle blast that blows behind it. All in all, good fun. The sound is spectacular. People come by the range who hear it from a distance and want to know what it is. My home town range actually closed after I shot there for a couple weeks...something about the Mayor being fed up with the noise... Best part about it is the upper is sent by UPS with no waiting and no paperwork other than an invoice. There's nothing like blasting through brake drums, rotors, steel beams, masonry, etc like it's nothing. | ||
| Outrider |
Tramp & Uwgriz...Understand and agree with your concerns about cops, but my question had to do with citizens that get caught carrying a loaded firearm without a permit. There are a lot of folks bragging about their interpretation of their right to bear arms here that may not know they are committing a crime regardless of their rationale. Depending on where you get caught, it ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony. Note that getting caught may be just a part of a normal traffic stop or some other equally unrelated issue. |
