I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4D13

Oh, and while this last part might be off-topic, I would also like to point out that there's something which I find extremely absurd about U.S. laws, and it's that, should a burglar enter your house, you could just kill him/her on the spot and it would be totally fine. Is this reasonable? I don't think that killing someone is justified, whether they are burglars or anything else.

---

I think that's reasonable. Far too many are the cases around my parts where someone is attacked -- and a burglary is an attack on you and your property --, defends himself and ends up getting a prison sentence because he used excessive force. I think that the person who instigates an illegal action, an illegal attack should face the possibility that deadly force may be used against him. And I think I should have the option of "popping a cap" in a burglar's arse. But I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

He shot him 41 times and then he killed him?!

---

I think he proved a stubborn sucker......? Surely. a single shot to the leg perhaps as a warning would have served as a good deterrant. 41 times is just insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studiose

I think that's reasonable. Far too many are the cases around my parts where someone is attacked -- and a burglary is an attack on you and your property --, defends himself and ends up getting a prison sentence because he used excessive force. I think that the person who instigates an illegal action, an illegal attack should face the possibility that deadly force may be used against him. And I think I should have the option of "popping a cap" in a burglar's arse. But I don't.

---

Well, we have the case of Tony Martin over here.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4D13

I can't come up with a reason why it should be allowed to have a gun in your house. I've heard a lot of times that people want to have guns to defend themselves, but, in my opinion, the only reason because people would want to defend themselves is because there are too many weapons in the US. If everyone has guns, you would need them, right? But wouldn't it be just a lot safer if no-one had them? We don't have this problem in most European countries - no one seems to think that having guns at home is necessary or simply safer.

---

True. If everybody has guns, then burglars just take care they have a bigger and better gun than yours or shoot you first. It's like those policemen assumed a black man was armed and shot him, the criminals may also assume that you're armed and shoot you for self defense before finding out if you really were armed or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NHSPhysician

The amendment people speak of is when muskets were the weapon. Having read a few books on gun incidents and the 2nd amendment I do not see, nor do people from all over Europe and Asia see how it applies today. It is obvious why it was set up. People were armed in an emergency to get together with their militia. Take out the militia and there are no rights.
Thank you for allowing me add my two pence.

---

As a citizen of the State of Indiana, my Constitution says nothing about a militia, it does say that I can own a gun for personal protection.
Indiana Constitution - Article 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indiana Constitution Article 1 Section 32

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

---

So the "milita" argument holds no water.

Beyond that, don't we hear all the time (mostly from the Europeans) that we MUST respect people's cultures and customs, and that we shouldn't poke our nose's in other people's business? Shouldn't that go both ways? In the US it is part of our culture to own guns for whatever reason we want be it self protection, protection of our Country/State, hunting, sport, colection, whatever. Why is that any of your business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

The first time I visited the US I heard on the news that New York City policemen had shot an unarmed man 41 times and killed him. I couldn't believe my ears:

Amidou Diallo stories

---

So since the cops went crazy, we should outlaw guns for everyone? What sort of "logic" is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

He shot him 41 times and then he killed him?!

---

No, there were IIRC 4 cops repeatedly emptying their Glocks, and evidently re-loading...Maybe the twitches of his body seemed threatening, or maybe they ordered him to stop twitching and the body refused so they had to use more force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So since the cops went crazy, we should outlaw guns for everyone? What sort of "logic" is that?

---

If cops can't handle guns safely, how do you expect everyone else can? Shouldn't cops be outstanding citizens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

True. If everybody has guns, then burglars just take care they have a bigger and better gun than yours or shoot you first. It's like those policemen assumed a black man was armed and shot him, the criminals may also assume that you're armed and shoot you for self defense before finding out if you really were armed or not.

---

Eki, I see you are back to you basic fear mongering silliness based on your total ignorance of firearms and armed U.S. criminals plus the facts that exist about home owners using firearms on criminals.
Look them up before making such statement, and such silliness can be avoided. (You look them up. If you want me to, send me fifty bucks for the first hour.)

Bigger gun, hmm, I suppose he just goes down to the local car trunk salesmen and buys a larger handgun that he cannot conceal as well.
Perhaps he is well educated on firearms, as he is a graduate from the local Crim. University, where proper tool use by criminals is taught, along with machinest skills to fix them.
Of course there are the talking heads on, U.S. news that talk about the "powerful" 9mm, but if you showed them two cartridges they probably could not tell .45 from a 9mm.

Better gun.
Maybe like that silly Jolie movie, it can make the bullet curve around corners.

I do like your statement about shoot you first, that is probably why more states are eliminating the asinine law that forced home owner to flee before trying to defend themselves.
If the governor signs it it, now in Minn. when some one breaks your window to break-in, you can shoot the pos dead on the spot. No more grand jury to prove you had a reason to shoot him.
A statement like yours, makes getting such so called castle defense laws passed easier.

Sadly, police training in this country has become a sad state of affairs.
I have spoke to retired policemen who say they come out of the acadamy with storm trooper attitudes and they are taught to spray and pray rather take aimed shots.

One good thing about the castle defense laws, if cops break into the wrong home and the home owner shoots policemen dead, the blame will nowlie with the police, where before home owners were prosecuted for shooting police that broke into their homes, even if it were the werong home.

It has always bothered me that civilians that shoot a non-criminal by accident, including they thought the person was an intruder, could face some degree of manslaughter charge in some states, but police shooting the wrong person, do not face that charge.
Of course that may explain why the second amendment exists to protect us against those who work for the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

If cops can't handle guns safely, how do you expect everyone else can? Shouldn't cops be outstanding citizens?

---

Policement are just simple humans like everyone else with all the failing.

Actually, prohibition in the U.S. showed they might have a few abnormal failings that come with power.