quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
Interesting. Thank you DS. So as long as she only shoots the ones that look as though they may be doing harm or putting the victim in danger, she should get away with it ? Not allowed to back-shoot them I suppose *smile*? Again though DS, thanks. ......................at least I didn't get some other 'expert' telling me it was 'Common Knowledge' , to coin a phrase *smile*.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I have a serious question here. If that woman had shot and wounded or killed those five (unarmed) men, would she have been charged with anything ? Or would she just get a 'Get out of jail free' card ? If so, why and on what grounds ? I promise I am not being a smartass. I am genuinely interested because those five really didn't seem to be any kind of threat to her or her family or her property.
Out of interest, I really don't give a damn about the gun/no gun debate in America. That is for Americans to discuss and find their own solutions and really nothing to do with the rest of the world, no matter how WE live. Good luck to them, whatever they decide

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
I have a serious question here. If that woman had shot and wounded or killed those five (unarmed) men, would she have been charged with anything ? Or would she just get a 'Get out of jail free' card ? If so, why and on what grounds ? I promise I am not being a smartass. I am genuinely interested because those five really didn't seem to be any kind of threat to her or her family or her property.
Out of interest, I really don't give a damn about the gun/no gun debate in America. That is for Americans to discuss and find their own solutions and really nothing to do with the rest of the world, no matter how WE live. Good luck to them, whatever they decide

Interesting question. I did a quick search and ran across a blog on Aware.org:

quote:

If you are like me, you need a simple rule, one that is easy to understand, applies virtually everywhere, "feels right" morally and ethically, and is so clearly within the bounds of laws everywhere that you feel safe applying it. Here is that rule:

You are justified in using lethal force against another human being if, and only if, there is immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.

Now, understand that the blog posted list the ideas of the blogger, and may or may not, in fact, reflect reality in the US.

While the expounding on the different points were mostly skewed towards self-defense, there might need to be more "regulations" on who you can or can't shoot. For instance, lethal force should be the last resort, imo. If a 3rd grade kid is being pummeled by a 6th grade bully, there certainly is "immediate and unavoidable danger of grave bodily harm to an innocent person," but you probably shouldn't be allowed to shoot the 6th grader in situations like these. If you can get in between the bully and the victim, and stop the fucker, then shooting the kid should result in a punishment for illegal use of deadly force, manslaughter, etc.

As a rule of thumb, though, I do agree with the rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Greta, as an American who believes in the 2nd Amendment but also believes reasonable controls are necessary, I wouldn't exactly call this article 'neutral'. Quite patronizing, in fact.

quote:

these anti-gun countries have far higher contact crime (assault) rates than the US,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Another comment while I'm on a roll.
I watched a Muslim woman off from a link from here, be beaten, tortured, killed by a mob of mainly men because she was accused of burning a Quran, later to find out she died under false allegations to add insult to injury.
It is a rare occurrence, almost as unheard of here. There might be a couple crazies in a crowd but the rest of the crowd would have went apeshit and subdued those maniacs or killed them for that heinous crime. I still can't get that sickening injustice out of my head.
People who do such a good thing I would not even call human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Lol.
You do know a blind man could see the intentions of non stop insults to Americans.
Jealous much? Or maybe it's ignorance.
You don't hear about the every day routine stuff, you hear about the tragedies.
My step dad is a hunter and owns an arsenal of guns. So do both my step brothers. So do half their sons. All hunters. All legal. Although they could, they don't carry a gun on themselves. Maybe in their vehicle but not strapped on routinely. One works for a federal penitentiary so trust me he has been tested psychologically.
Good news they have neither threatens nor killed anyone and they are between 50-85 years of age with this privilege from the age of being legal.
You never have to concern yourself with them unless one decides to steal, pull a gun on innocents, or themselves having their life threatened. A problem might be created then, but who created their destiny?
As far as people carrying a gun on their person, depends on the nature of their job or the environment they are entering.
There was a thread about people with guns while just having lunch. You really don't see people running around with guns exposed, at least where I come from. If they have one its concealed, unless it's a profession you won't see that. If someone is going to lunch showing a weapon it's very likely they will be questioned or reported anonymously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Another comment while I'm on a roll.
I watched a Muslim woman off from a link from here, be beaten, tortured, killed by a mob of mainly men because she was accused of burning a Quran, later to find out she died under false allegations to add insult to injury.
It is a rare occurrence, almost as unheard of here. There might be a couple crazies in a crowd but the rest of the crowd would have went apeshit and subdued those maniacs or killed them for that heinous crime. I still can't get that sickening injustice out of my head.
People who do such a good thing I would not even call human.

This is confusing. A Muslim woman? A MUSLIM woman burns her own Quran? WOW! She sounds amazing! Huh? Why she do that if she's a Muslim? And which country did this happen in? It still confuses me why would anybody in America bother beating up someone who burns a Quran? This happened in the US? Unless she got beat up by fellow Muslims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Lol.
You do know a blind man could see the intentions of non stop insults to Americans.
Jealous much? Or maybe it's ignorance.
You don't hear about the every day routine stuff, you hear about the tragedies.
My step dad is a hunter and owns an arsenal of guns. So do both my step brothers. So do half their sons. All hunters. All legal. Although they could, they don't carry a gun on themselves. Maybe in their vehicle but not strapped on routinely. One works for a federal penitentiary so trust me he has been tested psychologically.
Good news they have neither threatens nor killed anyone and they are between 50-85 years of age with this privilege from the age of being legal.
You never have to concern yourself with them unless one decides to steal, pull a gun on innocents, or themselves having their life threatened. A problem might be created then, but who created their destiny?
As far as people carrying a gun on their person, depends on the nature of their job or the environment they are entering.
There was a thread about people with guns while just having lunch. You really don't see people running around with guns exposed, at least where I come from. If they have one its concealed, unless it's a profession you won't see that. If someone is going to lunch showing a weapon it's very likely they will be questioned or reported anonymously.

No, just a country who will protect LGBT people from being mass murdered! You guys let the mass murderer go because your laws of freedom, allow him to walk free and do this crime. FBI was helpless as the law worked against them, to detain this guy. Despite him being flagged in their list as potential terrorist.

We arrested and thrown in jail, our own version of potential Orlando killer, as I have posted in the Orlando thread.

But it's two different cultural beliefs. Individual freedom at the expense of others, is American. Giving up some freedom, so that everyone can be safe, is our culture. Not having guns in our country does not stop us from pursuing our hope and dreams. Unless that dream is owning a gun and that's all they want in life, then they can move to a gun legal country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

Another comment while I'm on a roll.
I watched a Muslim woman off from a link from here, be beaten, tortured, killed by a mob of mainly men because she was accused of burning a Quran, later to find out she died under false allegations to add insult to injury.
It is a rare occurrence, almost as unheard of here. There might be a couple crazies in a crowd but the rest of the crowd would have went apeshit and subdued those maniacs or killed them for that heinous crime. I still can't get that sickening injustice out of my head.
People who do such a good thing I would not even call human.

This is confusing. A Muslim woman? A MUSLIM woman burns her own Quran? WOW! She sounds amazing! Huh? Why she do that if she's a Muslim? And which country did this happen in? It still confuses me why would anybody in America bother beating up someone who burns a Quran? This happened in the US? Unless she got beat up by fellow Muslims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Greta, as an American who believes in the 2nd Amendment but also believes reasonable controls are necessary, I wouldn't exactly call this article 'neutral'. Quite patronizing, in fact.

I personally think, this very specific comment sums up what is uniquely American.

the paramount of individual freedom at the expense of others

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Toward the end of the same thread it was brought out that one week after Orlando someone tried the same thing in S Carolina. Most of you wouldn't have heard about that because in SC ccw holders who aren't drinking are allowed to carry in night clubs. Instead of 49 dead and 50+ wounded there were three people and the shooter wounded. The difference, the ccw holder shot the shooter.

You do know that more people were killed in one mass shooting in Paris than have been killed in the last 5 years in mass shootings in U S .

Maybe you should be sticking your collective nose into French gun laws.

quote:


Guns kill..end of all other narratives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Toward the end of the same thread it was brought out that one week after Orlando someone tried the same thing in S Carolina. Most of you wouldn't have heard about that because in SC ccw holders who aren't drinking are allowed to carry in night clubs. Instead of 49 dead and 50+ wounded there were three people and the shooter wounded. The difference, the ccw holder shot the shooter.

You do know that more people were killed in one mass shooting in Paris than have been killed in the last 5 years in mass shootings in U S .

Maybe you should be sticking your collective nose into French gun laws.

When it comes to Singaporeans, they are talking about TOTAL banning of guns from the bad guys and the good guys. Both parties aren't allowed to have guns.

France is a country that allows guns, so that still proves our point.

Both Orlando and France could not happen if both bad guys and good guys cannot get guns.

Anyway, alot of things that are legal in france are also banned in our country.

By the way, the Orlando incident, it was now established that 3 men had guns, and had a shoot out with the killer BEFORE he even entered the night club, they were trying to shoot the killer to protect the others but failed. Worst of all, they were cops. Guess they were bad at aiming.
So Guns failed to protect in Orlando.
It depends on who's the better shooter. When all are equal and everybody has guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And in SC one guy had a gun and kept anyone from being killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And in SC one guy had a gun and kept anyone from being killed.

So my point is, in one incident, 3 good gun owners didn't prevent the massacre.
SC got lucky with a good shooter. But not many gun owners are gonna be great shooters. So it doesn't guarantee safer either!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Most gun owners are better shots than most cops.

quote:


You don't know about Happyland NJ 87 killed.
Weapons a piece of chain for the back door and about 5 gallons of gas.
No guns = no safty guarantee safer either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Most gun owners are better shots than most cops.

THIS is precisely one of the problems that needs fixing!

quote:


You don't know about Happyland NJ 87 killed.
Weapons a piece of chain for the back door and about 5 gallons of gas.
No guns = no safty guarantee safer either.

Eliminating one weapon of destruction means you are limiting one more avenue for the bad guys to exploit. The whole idea is simply making it more difficult for bad guys to kill. Like I say, some things in life are pretty difficult to ban, because, knives, you need it for food. Gas, you need it for cooking.

So those items serve dual purposes.

But I reckon the number of mass murders over all will just drop so drastically once bad guys and good guys, BOTH can't get hold of guns. Bad guys will start thinking of other ways to kill, and they will find them. But as with each things happen with more frequency, the good guys should be again be able to find ways to prevent them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Greta, as an American who believes in the 2nd Amendment but also believes reasonable controls are necessary, I wouldn't exactly call this article 'neutral'. Quite patronizing, in fact.

I personally think, this very specific comment sums up what is uniquely American.
the paramount of individual freedom at the expense of others

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)