Gun Control

[ahole-ic]

so your saying: criminals dont abide by laws

P: law abiding gun owners abide by laws

---->

C: therefore gun laws only affect law abiding gun owners (and your furthering this to gun laws fail to reduce gun violence?)

When put in these terms, can you see what is wrong with your thinking? The logic is internally valid but your using words whose definition limit your consideration of the impact guns have on crime. Unfortunately the real world is more complex than can be appreciated by a simple syllogism. Not all gun violence is intentional or premeditated. What was once a law abiding citizen is not always a law abiding citizen. etc

To illustrate this point consider:

So what you did there was say, "your point is rock solid. It can't be disputed, so here are some random words that don't make as much sense as what you said and to back them up here is a link to some statistics that nobody knows how they calculated them and they are from 1991."

No guy. Taking guns away from people does not reduce crime. chicago, washington dc, and new york city have proved this. Look at their statistics. Now look at anywhere with concealed carry. They will have less gun crime than anywhere else. I'll let you find the statistics so you actually believe them rather than try to attack my sources. If you need sources they are ALL OVER. I can find them if you like, but your argument has been defeated time and time again. Guns are already out there. They cannot be taken away. All you can do is disarm the law abiding citizens to where criminals KNOW they are disarmed, and you made guns illegal so now you have nothing in place to find out who bought guns because.... they aren't supposed to be doing it. So by instituting "gun control" you have actually given up all control.

 

[xX J Brutal Xx 10+ year member]

The laws state "if you FEEL that your life is in danger"If anyone forces their way into your home or car while you are in it, you CAN defend it.

Its called the "Castle Doctrine"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cga.ct.gov%2F2007%2Frpt%2F2007-r-0052.htm&rct=j&q=castle%20doctrine&ei=DL0oTuHBGs-htwfwvfi7Cg&usg=AFQjCNHnFcNMJNOBN2cXvKCy6hl63_SCzA&cad=rja

Show me one state or any proof that says that anyone can just enter your home and do as they please where you cannot defend it.

Here is some more...

Criminal Defense Home » Criminal Law Basics

What is the Castle Doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine is a self-defense provision that allows for the use of force, including deadly force, within one's home.

The Castle Doctrine has been adopted in full in some states, and in part in others, as a means of justifiable homicide. A local criminal defense attorney may best know if the Castle Doctrine applies in your case.

Castle Doctrine Explained

Based on the English Common Law provision that one's home is one's "castle", the Castle Doctrine is a popular yet controversial law that allows for a person whose home is under attack to use force upon the attacker.

As each state has its own Castle laws, there are a number of limitations and exclusions to the law. Generally speaking, though, the occupant:

• must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm;
  
• must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony;
  
• must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm;
  
• may be protecting himself or any other within the residence; and
  
• may need to announce his presence and intention to retaliate.
  

In all cases, the occupant must legally be in the residence, and the intruder must be there illegally. Additionally, Castle laws may extend these rights to a workplace, car, or other residence where the occupant is legally.

In some states, the Castle Doctrine provides complete immunity, including from future civil suits brought forth by the intruder and/or the intruder's family.

Stand Your Ground vs. Duty to Retreat

States that have adopted the Castle Doctrine have done so in a number of ways. One of the most prevalent is the Stand Your Ground clause, which states that a homeowner who is under perceived threat of attack has no obligation to try to escape his or her attacker before resorting to deadly force.

On the opposite side is the Duty to Retreat, which states that force should be a last resort, and the homeowner must, within reason, try to escape his attacker before retaliating.

State Passage of the Castle Doctrine

Currently, there are a number of states which have passed laws in favor of some version of the Castle Doctrine, including:

• Alabama
  
• Alaska
  
• Arizona
  
• California
  
• Colorado
  
• Connecticut
  
• Florida
  
• Hawaii
  
• Kansas
  
• Louisiana
  
• Maine
  
• Maryland
  
• Massachusetts
  
• Michigan
  
• Mississippi
  
• Missouri
  
• Ohio
  
• Oregon
  
• New Jersey
  
• North Carolina
  
• Rhode Island
  
• Texas
  
• Utah
  
• West Virginia
  
• Wyoming
  

Additionally, some states have passed laws that encompass parts of the Castle Doctrine without explicitly calling them such. Some states have also passed a "weak" version of the Castle Doctrine that keeps the duty to retreat but still allows for the use of deadly force in a home invasion. Some of these states include: Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. A local criminal defense attorney may be your best resource in determining if the Castle Doctrine may be a viable defense in your case.

To connect with a criminal defense attorney, simply call us toll-free at 877-445-1059 or fill out the no-obligation free case evaluation form on this page, to schedule your consultation.

Submit ZIP Code

The above summary of the Castle Doctrine is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. Laws may have changed since our last update. For the latest information on the Castle Doctrine, speak to a criminal defense attorney in your area.

I know all about it. it also states that there must be a threat of death or great bodily injury. all im saying is if the perp doesn't have a weapon good luck defending yourself in court. cuz even if your shoot is legal you are still going to jail and you are still going to have to defend yourself in court. you might win you might not. deadly force should be the absolute last resort even if it is legal.

 

[Spike243 10+ year member]

The government made weed illegal and it is still extremely prevalent in many places. If guns were banned dont you think the same thing would happen?

The criminals will do anything to get what they want. It dosnt matter what you make illegal or not, they will use and abuse reguardless.

 

[Louisiana_CRX 5,000+ posts]

my definition of control: able to hit your target. i carry a shotgun in my car, sometime s loaded or unloaded. am i scare of getting pulled over? no. if they dont ask about me having a gun, i wont tell. if they do see it, i just tell them i was going to the range(since i carry extra slugs and a ear piece and targets too.) but im not a probable cause to get pulled over, nor i brake any traffic laws to even get a route traffic stop. a simple busted head/tail light, or not making a turn signal when turning, or even making an illegal U-Turn can lead to an arrest from weapons possession or drug possession too if the person had it in their car.

That is why I am glad to live in the great old state of Texas. They passed a law about a year and a half ago stating you could carry a loaded hand gun in your vehicle to and from work/home WITHOUT a CHL. There are several loopholes in this law. Main one being how would they prove that you weren't going home if you were going to a friends house etc.... They made the law like such for such flexibility.
So I carry a .40 Glock in the center console of my truck. Now remember also, that if you have a CHL or if you live in Texas with this law, if you are impaired, drug or alcohol, and you have the gun with you, automatic felony. I think some people fail to forget that in Texas.

I feel keeping a hand gun in the truck and a 12 gauge shotgun in the house is needed, unless you live in a rural area, like my old town in Oklahoma of 1200 people where everyone knew everyone. But having a shotgun in your vehicle isn't very handy when in most instances when you need it, someone runs up to your window to jack you. Can't grab your shotgun out of truck very well and very quickly. Much easier to cock a hangun back alot easier too than a shotgun when sitting in a car/pickup

I know all about it. it also states that there must be a threat of death or great bodily injury. all im saying is if the perp doesn't have a weapon good luck defending yourself in court. cuz even if your shoot is legal you are still going to jail and you are still going to have to defend yourself in court. you might win you might not. deadly force should be the absolute last resort even if it is legal.

Shoot first...ask questions later and always effing remember the dead don't lie....//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

I know all about it. it also states that there must be a threat of death or great bodily injury. all im saying is if the perp doesn't have a weapon good luck defending yourself in court. cuz even if your shoot is legal you are still going to jail and you are still going to have to defend yourself in court. you might win you might not. deadly force should be the absolute last resort even if it is legal.

• must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm;
  
• must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony;
  
• must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm;
  
• may be protecting himself or any other within the residence; and
  

It says thay you must believe that you are in danger OR" intends to commit a felony"

Breaking and entering is a felony:fyi:

Iam sorry but anyone entering my home or car FORCEFULLY is ground for me to feel great threat as they DO NOT BELONG THERE.

I have yet to see a bad guy FORCE their way into a home with out some kind of weapon on them.

And, when it comes to my family being in ANY danger like that, deadly force will be the FIRST resort, period.

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

I know all about it. it also states that there must be a threat of death or great bodily injury. all im saying is if the perp doesn't have a weapon good luck defending yourself in court. cuz even if your shoot is legal you are still going to jail and you are still going to have to defend yourself in court. you might win you might not. deadly force should be the absolute last resort even if it is legal.

Here in Ga and in Fl, if your shoot is clear, you DO NOT go to jail.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[xX J Brutal Xx 10+ year member]

• must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm;
  
• must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony;
  
• must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm;
  
• may be protecting himself or any other within the residence; and
  

It says thay you must believe that you are in danger OR" intends to commit a felony"

Breaking and entering is a felony:fyi:

Iam sorry but anyone entering my home or car FORCEFULLY is ground for me to feel great threat as they DO NOT BELONG THERE.

I have yet to see a bad guy FORCE their way into a home with out some kind of weapon on them.

And, when it comes to my family being in ANY danger like that, deadly force will be the FIRST resort, period.

1-intends to commit! means you can prevent him from coming in but if he is already in your house the felony has already been committed. that means the rules change.

as for the rest. 90% of the time you might be right. but are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail cuz a couple teenagers broke into your house and didnt think you were home?

 

[Louisiana_CRX 5,000+ posts]

I sleep with the Judge in grabbing distance....I can promiss even half blind and half asleep I still won't miss if woke up in the middle of the night....i sleep lite anyway....and have outdoor paremeter sensors all around my house....each one makes a diffrent sound so i can tell if something is going on....so i want someone to break into my house...and they won't be the first one whos died in here either....

 

[xX J Brutal Xx 10+ year member]

Here in Ga and in Fl, if your shoot is clear, you DO NOT go to jail.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

sorry but if there was a fatality there will be an investigation and you will be in jail till that is over.

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

sorry but if there was a fatality there will be an investigation and you will be in jail till that is over.

Well tell that to my father who killed someone that broke into his home. He did NOT spend a tenth of a second in jail.

I think you need to read up on the laws some more.

1-intends to commit! means you can prevent him from coming in but if he is already in your house the felony has already been committed. that means the rules change.

as for the rest. 90% of the time you might be right. but are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail cuz a couple teenagers broke into your house and didnt think you were home?

How do the rules change, they are still in the commission of a felony.

After they have broken in, which is a felony, they are still committing a felony just by being there. At that point, I still feel that my life and the lives of my family are in grave danger. Again, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE THERE.

Are you willing to let you wife and kids be harmed by these intruders? I mean, you would actually take that chance with your family? My family comes before anyone that enters my home forcefully. Iam not going to wait and ask "hey, are you going to hurt me?"

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

sorry but if there was a fatality there will be an investigation and you will be in jail till that is over.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2F2011%2F03%2F22%2Farmed-beauty-queen-fatally-shoots-intruder-florida-home-invasion%2F&rct=j&q=fla%20home%20invasions&ei=HtYoTpaTLYqgtwfxyaztCw&usg=AFQjCNHfondxTIYhimR61qX1x5Z9PaXsyw&cad=rja

No jail time for her...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEoQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wptv.com%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fregion_indian_river_county%2Falleged-burglar%2C-21%2C-shot-and-killed-in-indian-river-county&rct=j&q=fla%20home%20invasions&ei=HtYoTpaTLYqgtwfxyaztCw&usg=AFQjCNFXLeSw2qXn-yw95yWGzDO2Vc5lQg&cad=rja

No jail time for him either...

Armed men die in home invasion - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

No jail time for this one as well. The list goes on and on with cases just like these. So I don't think you "know all about this"

Not trying to seem like a prick here but I can say for a fact that I have more knowledge in this field than you do as it has hi very close to me.

And if for some reason I did happen to spend some time in jail, I would much rather do so then letting anything happen to my wife and or son.

Again, not trying to be a prick to you in any way at all.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/toast.gif.bc0657bf54b9ee653b6438524461341e.gif

 

[xX J Brutal Xx 10+ year member]

well here in NC you will go to jail till the investigation is over.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

So what you did there was say, "your point is rock solid. It can't be disputed, so here are some random words that don't make as much sense as what you said and to back them up here is a link to some statistics that nobody knows how they calculated them and they are from 1991."
No guy. Taking guns away from people does not reduce crime. chicago, washington dc, and new york city have proved this. Look at their statistics. Now look at anywhere with concealed carry. They will have less gun crime than anywhere else. I'll let you find the statistics so you actually believe them rather than try to attack my sources. If you need sources they are ALL OVER. I can find them if you like, but your argument has been defeated time and time again. Guns are already out there. They cannot be taken away. All you can do is disarm the law abiding citizens to where criminals KNOW they are disarmed, and you made guns illegal so now you have nothing in place to find out who bought guns because.... they aren't supposed to be doing it. So by instituting "gun control" you have actually given up all control.

Sorry it took me a few minutes of looking at your argument to make sense of what was wrong with it. I believe it can be simplified to: P-criminals dont abide by laws, C-therefore gun laws dont affect criminals. This is called a tautology.Tautology - New World Encyclopedia.

Your argument is necessarily true, it can never be false because the conclusion simply restates the premise. Its like me saying nuclear weapons aren't dangerous in the hands of a competent country. This is a true argument(ignoring the exception of accidents, something that can also happen with guns), but in reality a competent country can become an incompetent country. My tautology will still be true, but the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe has become very high. If no countries have nuclear weapons there is 0% chance that a nuclear war will occur. It is mathematical certainty. In the same way a law abiding gun owner can buy a gun and then later very easily become a non law abiding gun owner. Also in the same way 0 guns in the hands of 0 people give 0% chance of gun violence. And as gun ownership increases the chance of gun violence consequently increases. I hope you can now see why your argument is ultimately useless.

With that said, let me say that i do not support an entire ban on guns. I support more laws making it difficult for people to get guns, particularly concealable or high rate of fire weapons that make it easy for a crazy or dangerous person to hurt a lot of people in a matter of seconds. Even more specifically, i support laws that make it difficult for people who are more likely to commit gun violence to obtain guns, such as convicts or the mentally ill. Do even you think it should be easy for someone like jared loughner to get a hold of a high-cap glock?

One last thing- i referenced data from a study that was published in a reputable academic journal. That doesnt mean it is necessarily an unflawed study but thats why i include citations- if you want to pick apart the methodology or conclusions you are more than free to do so. I wouldnt be surprised if that study does in fact have problems with it. You can, and should, do the same thing with the claims youve made. Just make sure they are from credible sources (academic journals or governmental reports), cite them, and if i am skeptical about the conclusions or data i have the choice to look closer at the given study.

 

[Phoenix Risen 10+ year member]

even if "gun control" laws are passed how many people do you think will honestly turn in all their guns to the goverment.

if anyone think that taking guns out of people hands that own them to defend themselves and occasionally fire off a few rounds at the range will solve any problems your a bigger joke than the congressmen that are wanting to pass the lows.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

even if "gun control" laws are passed how many people do you think will honestly turn in all their guns to the goverment.
if anyone think that taking guns out of people hands that own them to defend themselves and occasionally fire off a few rounds at the range will solve any problems your a bigger joke than the congressmen that are wanting to pass the lows.

well i dont think ive heard anyone argue that all guns should be banned and turned in. That would take quite a significant legal argument to completely flip 200 years of 2nd amendment interpretation. But do you think anyone and everyone should be able to buy any type of weapon? Should paranoid schizophrenics with histories of violence be able to buy a mac-10 with armor piercing rounds no questions asked? If not, then where do you think the line should be?