Guns

[Sureboss]

I'd laugh if the American Judiciary system said that killing a burglar was better than injuring them.

 

[Nicksfix]

IF someone breaks into my house, (in the middle of the night) I might give them 2.5 seconds, hence time enough to rack my 12 gauge. As for noise, have you ever heard a shotgun go off, it makes a lot of noise. I know your going say "but the neighbors might hear the commotion, and rat you out, but remember my neighbors aren't that close, and I live in Tennessee, as Bob Lee Swagger put it, the patriot state of shooting stuff, so they're used to gunfire, and probably never even wake up. My doors are locked for a reason, you bypass the locks, you bypass your rights. So, if the criminal is dead, and there are no witnesses, how would the police know if he's been there for 2.5 minutes?

An old friend (retired deputy) told me something wise once, "One story is better than two" meaning "kill the prep," don't just wound them. I have also heard that if you had the time to aim at the robbers, say, knee then you could be charged with attempted murder, no longer being able to hide behind self defense.

Just so you know, I never want to hurt or kill anyone, as I am a peaceful person, but I hold protection of my family, including my dog, in high regard.

If you do shoot and kill an intruder,you better make sure the bases are covered , as explained to me by a County Sheriff (friend).Any more,the criminals have more rights than I do as a homeowner. (try to figure that one out , but it's true)

1. Is the intruder armed ? You can't shoot an un-armed man,reguardless if he is in your home (gray area of the law,if your smart,you can figure ways around this,of which I cannot and will not post).If you do happen to shoot an un-armed man,you had better have a s*** load of evidence that he was meaning harmful intent (not just a casual crackheaded robber looking for crap to sell so he could go buy a fix),otherwise your goose is cooked.

2. If you do shoot an intruder,never,ever,ever,ever shoot them in the back or backside,if you do your done.According to the Ohio justice system,the criminal can and will use the excuse that they were trying to leave the premises (which by Ohio law,you have to give them that option to leave your property),so shooting a man in the back is a major league no no.

3. If you are put into a situation where you have no option other than to shoot the criminal / intruder, (here we go with another gray area),your intent (by Ohio law),is to dis-able the person,not kill them. Once again,there are some cracks in this law that you can slide into. Is there a weapon in the presence that the said intruder was going to use as an intentional harming device (for the sake of arguement,better hope so) ? Martial arts people are another area which is kind of shady,they rely on their Martial arts skills (hands / feet) rather than a weapon. Which by law,once you reach a certain degree ( if anyone knows for sure at what degree this may be,please fill in,I'm thinking it's a black belt though,could be wrong).your hands and feet must be registered as a weapon.So if you do decide to take this criminals life,remember that the bullet entry must be from the front side of the person,your chances of getting out of this one by doing it this way are a much stronger arguement.I am not trying to tell you how to kill a person by any stretch of the matter,I am mjust trying to inform you of how the laws will work on this situation.

4. Was the said criminal outside or inside ? , you had better dot your I's and cross your T's on this one,this is a real funny (no pun) area to be addressed by the law and the courts.The excuse of " a car being broken down and the person was looking to see if anyone was home,to try to get help".Another good one that is being used is,"I was drunk and had to walk home and I thought that this was my property".There are so many excuses / reasons for being outside that you don't have a great chance of winning on this one. Be careful here.

5. Firing off warning shots : if by chance you are outside. (careful here again)
Do you know the proper way to fire off a warning shot ? INTO THE GROUND !!!!! Not up in the air !!!!! The bullet has to come back down,if it comes back down and hits someones private property,you are responsible for that round of ammo.


By the way,I have several guns in my home,all loaded and put up into various safe places of which are just a few steps away,depending which part of house your in.I will not hesitate to pull one and show some sign of "I will not back down"

Obama - you'll get my guns when you can pry my cold dead fingers off of them,until then,forget it pal !!!!!

 

[FoolKiller]

1. Legally, (ahem, Danoff) you may not keep them fully loaded, at which point, 90% of the time, self-defense is no longer an option, cause the criminals gun has been loaded since before he spotted you.

You and Danofff live in different states, based on your profile information, so your laws and his laws are different. I know I can legally keep a loaded gun mounted on a gun rack on my living room wall if I want.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

First off, I would never shoot anyone outside, as my guns stay in the house (unless target shooting), and if someone is outside in the middle of the night, I'd be too scared to go out there, so I'd just call the police. As for crossing you i's and dotting your t's, I would be happy to spend time in jail, as long as my family is safe. As I said before though, I NEVER want to hurt or kill anyone, so please if your a criminal, don't break into my house.

 

[TrievelA7X]

You and Danofff live in different states, based on your profile information, so your laws and his laws are different. I know I can legally keep a loaded gun mounted on a gun rack on my living room wall if I want.

He's a "tax-a-fornia" (california)
The strictest state in the country with gun (and all) laws.
And I believe it's a federal law that you cannot have a loaded gun with children in the house. I know it is in this state 100%.

 

[Famine]

Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

And Dan doesn't have any children yet anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I believe some of our gun laws should be removed.
1. Legally, (ahem, Danoff) you may not keep them fully loaded, at which point, 90% of the time, self-defense is no longer an option, cause the criminals gun has been loaded since before he spotted you.

Please quote or link the statute that you're citing here. I just checked the CA DOJ website guide on gun ownership and they confirm that you can WALK AROUND in your house with a LOADED gun.

Incidentally, I'm also allowed to have my gun loaded and even fire it at a gun range!! *gasp!*

You're right that ammunition has to be stored separately from the gun when it's stored in IN YOUR CAR in this state - and I always make sure to do that. At home, I have my guns locked away in a large safe with an electronic keypad. I'm roughly ~10 seconds away from two loaded handguns at all times when I'm at home - and I am in full compliance with the law.

2. That's absurd.

It jammed on me last weekend.

3. If you have kids in the house, they must be locked up, and not with your ammo.

Please quote the statute. I do not have kids, but I know of no law preventing me from having guns locked up but loaded even if I did have kids.

4. So now, I have a 10 month old son, and if someone breaks in, i have to go to the gun cabinet, unlock it, pull a gun out, take off the trigger lock, go to the ammo, which
I was forced to store away from the gun, and load it.

No, you go to your safe, punch a few buttons, and you've got a loaded gun in your hands.

6. If the criminals deaf it'd be nice too, cause uncle Sam says I gotta make this self-defense take 2.5 minutes, and I must make as much noise as possible doing it, so he has a chance to shoot me and my family first.

Please quote the statute that you're citing. I know of no law in the US that requires that I wait 2.5 minutes from some arbitrary time before I'm allowed to protect myself from lethal force.

...and I don't really care if I'm required to make noise while defending myself - because my first course of action if someone breaks into my place will be to announce as loudly as possible "I have a gun and I will use it!" I'll do that many times, voluntarily, in order to avoid actually having to use my gun.

 

[Keef]

I'd laugh if the American Judiciary system said that killing a burglar was better than injuring them.

I know that in conceal-and-carry classes they instruct gun carriers to shoot to kill. Simply "injuring" them still leaves the person being attacked in danger from the attacker. When you start to play games with your attacker your motivation of "self defense" becomes questionable, and it begins to appear that you shot the attacker for fun instead of for protection.

Besides looking suspicious to a judge and jury, it also leaves the attacker alive, which means he will now testify against you in court. That is a problem, because instead of simply deciding the facts (he attacked you, you killed him, self-defense) it becomes his word against yours. He may have attacked you, or you may have attacked him. It's hard to tell.

 

[Danoff]

I know that in conceal-and-carry classes they instruct gun carriers to shoot to kill. Simply "injuring" them still leaves the person being attacked in danger from the attacker. When you start to play games with your attacker your motivation of "self defense" becomes questionable, and it begins to appear that you shot the attacker for fun instead of for protection.

Agreed. The case law on this subject strongly suggests that once you shoot, you need to shoot to kill. You need to prove that it was reasonable for you to think you were in mortal danger. If you shoot someone in the legs, that undermines your position as well as allowing the attacker to appear in court and claim that you weren't in danger.

The letter of the law does not say that it's better to kill than to disable in a self-defense scenario, but practicality suggests that it is.

 

[Radracing]

What about protection from burglars?

What about protection from our own government?

At least half the reason that the "right to keep and bear arms" is in our Constitution is so that citizens will be able to put up armed resistance to a totalitarian government, should one come to power.

I'm a big fan of guns but to think that "citizens will be able to put up armed resistance to a totalitarian government" specially the US military is really not realistic because they have the "N" bombs and other more sophisticated weaponry that civilian guns would have no match. The solution to that is by making sure you don't have the wrong people running our government.

I think people have the right to own guns. But I also think it's the governments job to keep the people safe from criminals and crazy people from hurting the public. So we do need stricter controls on guns.

With that in mind, in my opinion we should restrict guns to be kept in gun clubs that gun owners will have to belong to, to own a gun and only given access to thier guns when going shooting at the range, going hunting for sport and if they have a need for self protection by acquiring a permit to carry it around. I know people feel the need to have the freedom to own a gun or guns but with all the crimes being committed with guns there has to be some control or else the basic principle of the government to keep the public who can't afford a gun to protect themselves are protected or else they failed as a goverment.

Sure cars kill more people than guns, but you don't see people people buying cars and just driving them around without a drivers licences.

We always seem to blame goverment for the problems in our country but it's not the goverment that's the problem. It's the people running the government. The government was designed to help the people have a better life. All the basic rules where applied a long time ago and it gave us the basic structural foundation we needed we just have been complacent with how it's being run that it's gotten so "F%$#@ uped" excuse the french. Now we have people running the government that are controlled by the special interest so that they can pass more laws to sell as many guns as they want to as many countries they want without any control or regulation. It's a gazzillion dollar biz, get it????

Hey! just like GTplanet. We can keep all the crazy street racers off the streets and just go online racing and the world will be a better place.....LOL!

 

[Famine]

Sure cars kill more people but you don't see people people buying cars and just driving them around without a drivers licences.

Err... yes you do.

About 2% of crashes in the UK involve an unlicenced driver.

 

[Keef]

I'm a big fan of guns but to think that "citizens will be able to put up armed resistance to a totalitarian government" specially the US military is really not realistic because they have the "N" bombs and other more sophisticated weponry that civilian guns would have no match. The solution to that is by making sure you don't have the wrong people running our government.

The government launching a civil war against their own citizens is a ridiculous idea. I hope. They would lose all credibility with citizens and people and countries around the world, and in that weakened state it seems reasonable that they'd be attacked by anyone else who thinks a little crooked. Starting a war like that would destroy the government's intentions and any ability to carry them out.

I truly can't imagine any soldier in their right mind would willingly attack US citizens. I can imagine their trained and disciplined minds would also stand up against whoever is commanding them, therefore making the military useless to the government.

 

[Radracing]

Err... yes you do.

About 2% of crashes in the UK involve an unlicenced driver.

So you can buy a car without a drivers licence in the UK?

 

[Famine]

Err... yes. Can you not in the US?

Does everyone selling their car secondhand have to see a valid drivers' licence before handing the keys over?

 

[Radracing]

I truly can't imagine any soldier in their right mind would willingly attack US citizens. I can imagine their trained and disciplined minds would also stand up against whoever is commanding them, therefore making the military useless to the government.

I totally agree with you on that, but it's happened in other countries. When you get a total dictator in power anything goes even executing soildiers for not following orders.

I was mentioning that as an extreme circumstance which is highly unlikely to happen in the US. It just serves as an example to what can happen when people become complacent to who they vote in office. It influences the direction the country is going dependent on who is running it. A very mild example would be the last 8 years from our last administration but I'm sure that would depend who youre talking to. An extreme would be Iraq or even Germany back in the 2nd world war would be a better example. I'm sure majority of the German military didn't agree with what was going on but feared more for self preservation.

Err... yes. Can you not in the US?

Does everyone selling their car secondhand have to see a valid drivers' licence before handing the keys over?

You have to have a valid licence to transffer a title of a car and it has to be done at the DMV (Department of motor Vehicles) So if you were a private seller selling a car you have to make sure it's all legal or else you could be liable if the person you sold it to does damage with that car including killing people. So yes would be my answer to your question I would think the same way applies in the UK since it's not a 3rd world country. But what do I know I don't really know your laws over their.

 

[Keef]

You don't need a driver's license to buy or drive a car. And you don't need it registered or even have a valid title in order to drive it.

But you'll eventually get in some serious trouble for it.

 

[Famine]

I would think the same way applies in the UK since it's not a 3rd world country.

Your first mistake

You have to have a valid licence to transffer a title of a car and it has to be done at the DMV (Department of motor Vehicles) So if you were a private seller selling a car you have to make sure it's all legal or else you could be liable if the person you sold it to does damage with that car including killing people. So yes would be my answer to your question

So... is it not possible for someone - say a criminal - to buy a car without a licence or valid registration and drive it about in the US?

 

[Danoff]

So... is it not possible for someone - say a criminal - to buy a car without a licence or valid registration and drive it about in the US?

Furthermore, it is not possible for an illegal immigrant to drive around unlicensed and uninsured. Such a thing would never happen, and even if it did, they'd never get into an accident.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Please quote or link the statute that you're citing here. I just checked the CA DOJ website guide on gun ownership and they confirm that you can WALK AROUND in your house with a LOADED gun.

Incidentally, I'm also allowed to have my gun loaded and even fire it at a gun range!! *gasp!*

You're right that ammunition has to be stored separately from the gun when it's stored in IN YOUR CAR in this state - and I always make sure to do that. At home, I have my guns locked away in a large safe with an electronic keypad. I'm roughly ~10 seconds away from two loaded handguns at all times when I'm at home - and I am in full compliance with the law.



It jammed on me last weekend.



Please quote the statute. I do not have kids, but I know of no law preventing me from having guns locked up but loaded even if I did have kids.



No, you go to your safe, punch a few buttons, and you've got a loaded gun in your hands.



Please quote the statute that you're citing. I know of no law in the US that requires that I wait 2.5 minutes from some arbitrary time before I'm allowed to protect myself from lethal force.

...and I don't really care if I'm required to make noise while defending myself - because my first course of action if someone breaks into my place will be to announce as loudly as possible "I have a gun and I will use it!" I'll do that many times, voluntarily, in order to avoid actually having to use my gun.

I was quoting the laws for me, i just assumed California would be stricter. Guess I was wrong.

And FYI, you still misconstrued most of the points I made, But I'll digress...

 

[TrievelA7X]

Your first mistake



So... is it not possible for someone - say a criminal - to buy a car without a licence or valid registration and drive it about in the US?

It actually does depend on the state.
Example would be FL, where you must have a valid DL to purchase a car.
Now obviously, someone could steal one, or buy one under the table, but one wrong move, (being pulled by a copper), and they'd be in jail.

Oops.... DP

 

[Radracing]

I would think the same way applies in the UK since it's not a 3rd world country.

Your first mistake

So what your saying is the UK is a 3rd world country???

So... is it not possible for someone - say a criminal - to buy a car without a licence or valid registration and drive it about in the US?

Now if we are talking about dumb criminals that are not in jail and out and about he's too dumb to steal a car. Instead pay for it with money he could use to buy drugs or prostitute's...LOL

 

[Danoff]

I was quoting the laws for me, i just assumed California would be stricter. Guess I was wrong.

Ok, quote/link the statutes that you're citing for your own state.

And FYI, you still misconstrued most of the points I made, But I'll digress...

Mostly I asked you to back up claims you made (which you chose not to do). What exactly did I say that misconstrued anything you wrote?

 

[TrievelA7X]

Incidentally, I'm also allowed to have my gun loaded and even fire it at a gun range!! *gasp!*

I never said anything about a gun range = +1 for me

You're right that ammunition has to be stored separately from the gun when it's stored in IN YOUR CAR in this state - and I always make sure to do that. At home, I have my guns locked away in a large safe with an electronic keypad. I'm roughly ~10 seconds away from two loaded handguns at all times when I'm at home - and I am in full compliance with the law.

I said I was wrong about CA sate laws

Please quote the statute. I do not have kids, but I know of no law preventing me from having guns locked up but loaded even if I did have kids.

you're right, they can be loaded, but nothing in the chamber, and you need a gun lock

No, you go to your safe, punch a few buttons, and you've got a loaded gun in your hands.

My story was an exagerration to illustrate a point.
That point being it hinders one's ability to get the gun out and ready to fire as quickly as possible.
Did you forget to mention stick a key in the gun lock, and unlock it, which for many people may be difficult, given the potential life or death situation, they may be shakey.

Please quote the statute that you're citing. I know of no law in the US that requires that I wait 2.5 minutes from some arbitrary time before I'm allowed to protect myself from lethal force.

Again, just like above
an exagerration to illustrate the extra time needed to go to your gun safe, punch in a code, pull your gun out, stick the key in, unlock it, pull the lock off, **** the gun, and get ready to take aim.

...and I don't really care if I'm required to make noise while defending myself - because my first course of action if someone breaks into my place will be to announce as loudly as possible "I have a gun and I will use it!" I'll do that many times, voluntarily, in order to avoid actually having to use my gun.

You're not required to make the noise i was talking about because the entire thing was an exagerration to illustrate the negative sides of these laws.
The only noise you're required to make is if you get a chance to see if they're armed, and/or give them a chance to leave.
Do you understand how you miscontrued almost the entire post now? Or are you going to argue whether it was the entire post or only 22.746398% of it?
I am very, very sorry I had to point all of that out, I would've thought someone of your stature would have understood it.

 

[Danoff]

I never said anything about a gun range = +1 for me

I see that you missed my point. -1 for you.

I said I was wrong about CA sate laws

...and then I asked you about your state.

you're right, they can be loaded, but nothing in the chamber, and you need a gun lock

In the safe, they can be loaded without a lock and with a bullet ready to go - to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to stand by this claim please cite the statute.

My story was an exagerration to illustrate a point.
That point being it hinders one's ability to get the gun out and ready to fire as quickly as possible.

It was enough of an exaggeration to cause you to arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Do you understand how you miscontrued almost the entire post now?

No.

 

[TrievelA7X]

I see that you missed my point. -1 for you.

In the safe, they can be loaded without a lock and with a bullet ready to go - to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to stand by this claim please cite the statute.

It was enough of an exaggeration to cause you to arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Well since you argued that my lack of explanation the first time was reason to believe I was full of it, we'll consider the letters in bold to be discredited until you do.
You ask me to quote statute, but don't quote it for your own claim? (that's in italic)
And the one underlined is the most hypocritical, but since you didn't clarify yourself, when your very last post was upset that I didn't, we'll just consider that whatever you considered mine.

Let's get one thing straight Danoff, you don't have special powers that enable you to criticize people for not posting what you want, without posting those things up yourself, so why don't you cut this hypocritical BS?
If you have a problem with my lack of evidence, don't post up your own, and try to call me out for it, I'm not stupid, and I don't suppose anyone reading this is either.
Or do I need to reiterate?

On second thought - Edit: Honestly danoff, I said I was wrong about the first point, which I obviously was, the fact that you simply disagree with my thinking you can't have one in the chamber, etc, etc - It's not important to me, cause at this point, I don't even have a gun, so if you disagree, then just disagree. But it would be nice if you wouldn't state your opinion against mine, without quoting statute, and demand that I quote statute.

Here's something for people who want to talk about gun control again -
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Pa__cities_rsquo__gun_laws_defy_suits_06-15-2009.html
I's about 8 municipallity's in PA passing their own gun laws that were rejected by the state.

 

[Famine]

Well since you argued that my lack of explanation the first time was reason to believe I was full of it, we'll consider the letters in bold to be discredited until you do.
You ask me to quote statute, but don't quote it for your own claim? (that's in italic)
And the one underlined is the most hypocritical, but since you didn't clarify yourself, when your very last post was upset that I didn't, we'll just consider that whatever you considered mine.

Let's get one thing straight Danoff, you don't have special powers that enable you to criticize people for not posting what you want, without posting those things up yourself, so why don't you cut this hypocritical BS?
If you have a problem with my lack of evidence, don't post up your own, and try to call me out for it, I'm not stupid, and I don't suppose anyone reading this is either.
Or do I need to reiterate?

Here's something for people who want to talk about gun control again, instead of danoff's neverending quest for information to be delivered to him, so he doesn't have to look it up.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Pa__cities_rsquo__gun_laws_defy_suits_06-15-2009.html
I's about 8 municipallity's in PA passing their own gun laws that were rejected by the state.

YOU made the claim. It's up to YOU to back your claim up when challenged on it. That's how it works.

I provided the counter immediately - and I not only don't live in California, but I don't live in the USA:

Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

So you need to show how YOUR claim is still valid even though the relevant legislation says it isn't...

Separate to that, Dan enquired if you could provide the relevant statute from your own state that prevents you from keeping a loaded weapon.

 

[TrievelA7X]

YOU made the claim. It's up to YOU to back your claim up when challenged on it. That's how it works.

I provided the counter immediately - and I not only don't live in California, but I don't live in the USA:



So you need to show how YOUR claim is still valid even though the relevant legislation says it isn't...

Separate to that, Dan enquired if you could provide the relevant statute from your own state that prevents you from keeping a loaded weapon.

Keep up with the times Famine, we're now talking about PA law, on whether or not you can keep a bullet in the chamber, in your house, with children, and also about gun locks and children in PA
I conceded the point when you provided that section of law. I though you would've seen that -

I said I was wrong about CA sate laws

*Snip* That's pretty much the jist of it.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/2837-pa-house-gets-ballistic-fingerprinting-bill-gun-lock-bill.html

This is just something that looks legit I found on another forum.
It does say handguns must be quipped with trigger locks, but I gotta say, this stuff's hard to find, so for anyone who wants or demands proof, you're better off looking yourself, cause I'm not finding much so far

 

[Famine]

Keep up with the times Famine, we're now talking about PA law,

Separate to that, Dan enquired if you could provide the relevant statute from your own state that prevents you from keeping a loaded weapon.

Indeed.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Indeed.

In the safe, they can be loaded without a lock and with a bullet ready to go - to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to stand by this claim please cite the statute.

Well like Famine says

YOU made the claim. It's up to YOU to back your claim up when challenged on it. That's how it works.

So I guess it's on him too, right Famine? Cause I didn't see you tell him that, but you agree with him, so you wouldn't.
"I'll wait with baited breath"

 

[Famine]

Well like Famine says

So I guess it's on him too, right Famine? Cause I didn't see you tell him that, but you agree with him, so you wouldn't.
"I'll wait with baited breath"

Yeah, you missed off the start there. Let me recap for you:

3. If you have kids in the house, they must be locked up, and not with your ammo.

Please quote the statute. I do not have kids, but I know of no law preventing me from having guns locked up but loaded even if I did have kids.

you're right, they can be loaded, but nothing in the chamber, and you need a gun lock

In the safe, they can be loaded without a lock and with a bullet ready to go - to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to stand by this claim please cite the statute.

The quote you're attributing to Dan was a response to your claim that guns can be loaded but without a round chambered and with a gun lock while in the safe. THIS was a response to him asking you for proof that he cannot have his guns loaded while they are locked away. THIS was a response to you telling him that legally he must have his guns unloaded while they are locked away.

The initial claim is yours. It has not been backed up. Solve this.