quote:

ORIGINAL: AQRMZ

to FD

In Texas we have a Law that states that you can stand your ground, The Castle Law, you do not have to run from an attacker.

Common sense should dictate just how you defend yourself however.

It was just changed recently from having to run rather than to stand your ground.

Running might be sort of hard for a person with arthritis and other ageing conditions.

Most of these comments about guns seem to be coming from people that have never faced the situation.

Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes and then talk, other-wise hold your tongue.

OK?

Do you want to stir the pot?

You could talk about the 9yo that shot a guy with a Uzi (I think) in AZ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, we get that you're insignificant. No worries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I keep on reading Bama's sig lines, Thompson, and keep on wondering if they're *ever* going to kick in for him, outside of the two matters of taxation and the endlessly boring, brainless and depressing issue of *fucking* gun ownership. I mean, really:

""Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take anything you have" Thomas Jefferson

" Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one" Thomas Paine ."

- Don't these two lines hint at least *some* testicles when it comes to resistance against the powers-that-be? Tom Paine, at least, had true grit when it came to defending the powerless against the powerful. To me, it's just a crying travesty to see his name used in support of the dismal, narrow little world of the gun-freedom whingers in the USA and absolutely fuck all else.

I pointed out before that Paine was what is now called with derision "A socialist". Even the leaders of both the American and the French revolutions turned on him once in power, due to his outspoken views.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think no one is questioning that's self defence when someone is actually trying to shoot at you, but between "it's reasonable to think" and "without any doubt" is where the protection of the right of life comes in question. It also comes in question when you move from the "duty to retreat" to the "stand your ground" principles.

If you give them a free shot you may not get one.
When they are half your age with a knife and you wait till they stab you it is too late. The knowledge that I was willing and able to shoot them has always put an end to things for me.
And there was no independent witness with your stepson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: AQRMZ

to FD

In Texas we have a Law that states that you can stand your ground, The Castle Law, you do not have to run from an attacker.

Common sense should dictate just how you defend yourself however.

It was just changed recently from having to run rather than to stand your ground.

Running might be sort of hard for a person with arthritis and other ageing conditions.

Most of these comments about guns seem to be coming from people that have never faced the situation.

Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes and then talk, other-wise hold your tongue.

OK?

Do you want to stir the pot?

You could talk about the 9yo that shot a guy with a Uzi (I think) in AZ.

Common sense, yes. We don't have to run from an attacker either.
But... because guns are virtually eradicated over here, your assailant isn't likely to be armed.
So, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.
I have faced an attacker but never needed a gun and it never entered into my head that I would even contemplate wanting one.
So yes, I've walked in the other guy's shoes; and no, I don't want or need a gun here.

And there's a thread about the Uzi shooting already.
If guns weren't so prolific amongst the populace it wouldn't have happened because there wouldn't have been any gun to shoot with in the first place!!


ETA: I'm intelligent enough to realize you're replying to me 'coz it tells me in the bottom-right corner of your post - no need to announce it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I think half the problem with the US (apart from the proliferation of guns) is the police seem to take forever getting anywhere to any incident.

I've heard things on here that indicate it isn't out of the norm to wait 20-30 or more minutes for them to arrive.
That isn't the case here, usually.
Anything violent, once reported, they arrive within minutes.

In the case with my stepson wielding a steak knife and threatening everyone in a manic temper tantrum, the cops were here and in the door (front and back in a 'pincer' movement) ready with batons, cuffs and pepper spray before the wife had finished explaining what was going on - quite literally, within a minute or two.
And that wasn't the only incident with my stepson but each time any sort of violence was mentioned they were here within moments.

Another time, we reported someone sulking around our back gardens and again, within minutes, there were several cop cars, an armed unit, a police van full of policemen and a police helicopter (with searchlight) milling around the neigbourhood searching for the blighter.
And yes, they caught him two roads down from us hiding in a dog kennel I believe.

Admittedly there are the odd cases where some poor soul gets beaten by thugs but it's not that common here.
Despite what some band about as violent crime stats, many things are filed like that under those headings here that don't even appear in US stats because of the way it's reported and recorded which lead to unreliable and misleading figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think no one is questioning that's self defence when someone is actually trying to shoot at you, but between "it's reasonable to think" and "without any doubt" is where the protection of the right of life comes in question. It also comes in question when you move from the "duty to retreat" to the "stand your ground" principles.

If you give them a free shot you may not get one.
When they are half your age with a knife and you wait till they stab you it is too late. The knowledge that I was willing and able to shoot them has always put an end to things for me.
And there was no independent witness with your stepson.

Yes that's the downside of living in a society with other people. Tomorrow there could be an earthquake and I could be hit on the head by a vase of flowers from a window and die, I do not go around with a helmet around the town. I feel more concern about an earthquake than being victim of a violent crime. So there are two way out: building a better society with education and eliminating obstacles to inequality or letting people scrape by using violence. Maybe one day you could be the man with alzahimer, I don't think you'd think it's fair to be put down like a dog for yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think no one is questioning that's self defence when someone is actually trying to shoot at you, but between "it's reasonable to think" and "without any doubt" is where the protection of the right of life comes in question. It also comes in question when you move from the "duty to retreat" to the "stand your ground" principles.

If you give them a free shot you may not get one.
When they are half your age with a knife and you wait till they stab you it is too late. The knowledge that I was willing and able to shoot them has always put an end to things for me.
And there was no independent witness with your stepson.

Yes that's the downside of living in a society with other people. Tomorrow there could be an earthquake and I could be hit on the head by a vase of flowers from a window and die, I do not go around with a helmet around the town. I feel more concern about an earthquake than being victim of a violent crime. So there are two way out: building a better society with education and eliminating obstacles to inequality or letting people scrape by using violence. Maybe one day you could be the man with alzahimer, I don't think you'd think it's fair to be put down like a dog for yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


Yes Italy is great all its violent crime is someone from some other countries fault... never someone whos native....

quote:



I as you again.... Why is a criminals life more important to you then an innocent bystander, why do you advocate for the rape or death of innocent people, as something thats okay because the criminals right to life is more important then the person doing nothing then being in their own home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


Yes Italy is great all its violent crime is someone from some other countries fault... never someone whos native....

I don't think nationality of the criminals really matters in safety perception, so I don't really what kind of point you are trying to make.
If you want a different source here is a blog entry from an american expat in italy, you'll find a part on the subject of crime scrolling the page. Here is the list of all the crimes reported in italy in different years. f you want to calculate the rates for 100000 habitants you have to divide by 609, if you need some traslation hints: rapine = robberies, omicidi volontari = murders and omicidi preterintenzionali = manslaughers, violenze sessuali = rapes, there is no real correspondant to assoult as it's is part of a group of different crimes.

quote:



I as you again.... Why is a criminals life more important to you then an innocent bystander, why do you advocate for the rape or death of innocent people, as something thats okay because the criminals right to life is more important then the person doing nothing then being in their own home.

I do not advocate for any death or rape, you are advocating for death. I didn't say more I said they are both absolute that's different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: smileforme50

It also took Jack, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy....months/YEARS to kill all those people.....they didn't do it in a matter of minutes or just a couple of hours.

Right. They killed a million people in 100 days in Rwanda. You can't imagine THAT happening without guns, can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: smileforme50

It also took Jack, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy....months/YEARS to kill all those people.....they didn't do it in a matter of minutes or just a couple of hours.

Right. They killed a million people in 100 days in Rwanda. You can't imagine THAT happening without guns, can you?

Actually, a buddy of mine was a Marine sitting on top of the roof of an American compound and watched about 100,000 or so of those deaths. It was all done with machetes. He said a very small Marine force with gun could have easily stopped it but there was no political will to do so. Let's see, who was the President then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: smileforme50

It also took Jack, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy....months/YEARS to kill all those people.....they didn't do it in a matter of minutes or just a couple of hours.

Right. They killed a million people in 100 days in Rwanda. You can't imagine THAT happening without guns, can you?

Actually, a buddy of mine was a Marine sitting on top of the roof of an American compound and watched about 100,000 or so of those deaths. It was all done with machetes. He said a very small Marine force with gun could have easily stopped it but there was no political will to do so. Let's see, who was the President then?

It was 1994 so Bill Clinton was president.