Guns Used.....cont

[Seth]

perfectly legal, which is why he's not being charged.

Perhaps so, but still not a good response. I have been in a similar situation with no gun, and driven off the attacker. On that occasion, I was not the victim. This guy was attacking a woman, who was possibly his wife. He was also quite drunk. I intervened, and he turned on me. I did not even strike back, but simply fended off his punches. While I did that, the woman disappeared. The guy gave up after a minute or so and ran off also. No guns required.

Whoop de doo for you. You don't get to tell someone else how to defend themselves, Sparky. If the victim had been an 80 year old lady in a dark parking lot, what then?

Don't move the goalposts Seth. That wasn't the situation. I don't get to tell people how to defend themselves? Perhaps not, but the law does and your laws are wrong on several points.

Which laws?

[aspire1670]

Cormac

You try popping my sliding doors off their runners! Can't be done. They are designed to make that impossible. The thing about my home is that it is just 4 years old. Modern design.

Certainly, older and poorly designed homes are difficult to make secure. But your statement was that it could not be done legally. Wrong. It can be done so well that not one burglar in 1,000 can get in. All legal. If you are retrofitting an old home with modern security systems, it will cost. If you are building a new home, making it secure will add relatively little to the cost of building.

However, even with an old home, at relatively modest cost you can make it so that most burglars will not want to take the risk of breaking in. Something as simple as motion sensors setting off bright lights is enough to make most burglars think twice. Add a proper alarm and deadbolts on all doors and windows, and very few burglars will bother.

Bullshit argument. Of course it's prudent to secure your home, but it's also prudent, and lawful, to arm yourself against the eventuality that the invader WILL NOT be deterred by all your security precautions.
Some scum broke into a friend's house but they hadn't bargained he was armed. They had to shoot him to death before they carried off his property. Wait, what?
Besides, violent criminal attacks don't just happen in the home, or had that salient fact escaped you...again. I had another friend with a concealed carry permit and he was attacked in broad daylight by a mugger. My friend pulled his pistol and the mugger shot him dead. Wait, what?

Derp!

Derp indeed.

[Jason]

Don't be a cunt. You know very well, or claim to.

[Seth]

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

Wrong. He's not being charged because this is a point where the gun laws in the US are ass backwards. In Canada we have laws concerning what is considered proportionate response. If someone comes at me barefisted and I pull a gun on him I can, and probably will, be charged and rightly so.

Canadians are stupid. What does that have to do with anything.

This 'in potential danger' or 'in fear of your life' is so much bullshit - it gives every moron a license to shoot someone so long as their lawyer can argue the point successfully.

Yup. And the lesson for violent persons is "don't fuck with other people and give them a reason to shoot you." Deterrence. "An armed society is a polite society." I like it that way.

It gives rise to unnecessary and potentially dangerous situations, such as the one in the article (fool pulling a gun in a crowd because he got touched up), and dangerously escalates them.

Don't punch someone in the face and you won't have the situation escalated on you. Do punch someone in the face (which can cause fatal or permanent injury) and you risk getting shot dead. Pretty simple.

So, no, he wasn't right. He was within a ass backwards law - that doesn't make him right.

He was absolutely right and did exactly what he needed to do and nobody but him got hurt (sadly...he should have kicked the assailant in the balls and arrested him), so he was ipso facto and de jure right.

Which is why he wasn't charged.

Not our concern if stupid Canadians care more about the poor, benighted violent criminal than they do peaceable law abiding citizens.

[Animavore]

Yup. And the lesson for violent persons is "don't fuck with other people and give them a reason to shoot you." Deterrence. "An armed society is a polite society." I like it that way.

This is piss poor for you.

[Robert_S]

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

Wrong. He's not being charged because this is a point where the gun laws in the US are ass backwards. In Canada we have laws concerning what is considered proportionate response. If someone comes at me barefisted and I pull a gun on him I can, and probably will, be charged and rightly so. This 'in potential danger' or 'in fear of your life' is so much bullshit - it gives every moron a license to shoot someone so long as their lawyer can argue the point successfully. It gives rise to unnecessary and potentially dangerous situations, such as the one in the article (fool pulling a gun in a crowd because he got touched up), and dangerously escalates them.

So, no, he wasn't right. He was within a ass backwards law - that doesn't make him right.

So, a person in the process of a physical assault on another human being has the right to not see a firearm?

Also, isn't it highly irresponsible to get into a fistfight when you're carrying a firearm? I'd much rather have the carrier of the gun display at the beginning of hostilities and calm the situation right the fuck down than have two people grappling when one of them has a gun that is likely to get accidentally discharged.

[Blind groper]

Canadians are stupid. What does that have to do with anything.

That statement is utter and despicable arrogance. You need not wonder, Seth, why people pay so little attention to what you have to say. The reason is revealed.

[Jason]

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

Wrong. He's not being charged because this is a point where the gun laws in the US are ass backwards. In Canada we have laws concerning what is considered proportionate response. If someone comes at me barefisted and I pull a gun on him I can, and probably will, be charged and rightly so.

Canadians are stupid. What does that have to do with anything.

Good argument. Moving along.

This 'in potential danger' or 'in fear of your life' is so much bullshit - it gives every moron a license to shoot someone so long as their lawyer can argue the point successfully.

Yup. And the lesson for violent persons is "don't fuck with other people and give them a reason to shoot you." Deterrence. "An armed society is a polite society." I like it that way.

No, there is no lesson besides the one that effectively giving people carte blanche to haul iron and create dangerous situations in which people may and probably will die is a contributing factor to gun related deaths in the US and a major failing of your legislation.

It gives rise to unnecessary and potentially dangerous situations, such as the one in the article (fool pulling a gun in a crowd because he got touched up), and dangerously escalates them.

Don't punch someone in the face and you won't have the situation escalated on you. Do punch someone in the face (which can cause fatal or permanent injury) and you risk getting shot dead. Pretty simple.

One of the several problems with your reasoning is that the situation is escalated for everyone. The belligerent party, the innocent bystanders, everyone. All it takes is for one of Mr. Punchy's friends to draw on Mr. Hero and it turns into a shoot-out at the OK corral. If the situation was responded to with proportionate force (as should be legislated and enforced), there would be minimal chance of that happening. Mr. Hero was irresponsible and recklessly endangered the lives of everyone present and was within your laws to do so.

So, no, he wasn't right. He was within a ass backwards law - that doesn't make him right.

He was absolutely right and did exactly what he needed to do and nobody but him got hurt (sadly...he should have kicked the assailant in the balls and arrested him), so he was ipso facto and de jure right.

Wrong. He was not right, he acted within the law and in doing recklessly endangered the lives of everyone present.

Which is why he wasn't charged.

he acted within the law and in doing recklessly endangered the lives of everyone present.

Correct.

Not our concern if stupid Canadians care more about the poor, benighted violent criminal than they do peaceable law abiding citizens.

Wrong. We care more about the lives of innocents and victims which is why we have legislation governing the justifiable escalation of conflict and proportionate response instead of a law that amounts to 'I felt scared so I hauled iron (and possibly shot some people)'.

[Seth]

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

Wrong. He's not being charged because this is a point where the gun laws in the US are ass backwards. In Canada we have laws concerning what is considered proportionate response. If someone comes at me barefisted and I pull a gun on him I can, and probably will, be charged and rightly so.

Canadians are stupid. What does that have to do with anything.

Good argument. Moving along.

This 'in potential danger' or 'in fear of your life' is so much bullshit - it gives every moron a license to shoot someone so long as their lawyer can argue the point successfully.

Yup. And the lesson for violent persons is "don't fuck with other people and give them a reason to shoot you." Deterrence. "An armed society is a polite society." I like it that way.

No, there is no lesson besides the one that effectively giving people carte blanche to haul iron and create dangerous situations in which people may and probably will die is a contributing factor to gun related deaths in the US and a major failing of your legislation.

There is no "carte blanche" to "haul iron" anywhere in the US. In fact, the circumstances under which you may even pull your shirt up and reveal your handgun without laying a hand on it are very narrowly defined. Violating those restrictions can get you charged with anything from misdemeanor disorderly conduct to felony menacing. Hell, in some places you can get a ticket for having your concealed handgun "print through" your outerwear. "Print through" is where you wear something sheer or tight enough that the outline of the handgun is clearly visible to others, which is considered "brandishing" in some jurisdictions.

So, you're perfectly wrong. In the instant case, the guy was brutally, unexpectedly and suddenly violently attacked by a stranger. He had every reason to believe that his life, or another's was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm because he had just been subjected to an unprovoked violent attack. In case you didn't know it, punching someone in the face, or abdomen, or kidneys, or scrotum, or several other places on the human body carry a substantial risk of killing or permanently injuring the victim. Knocking a person unconscious with a single blow can cause them to fall to the ground and fracture their skull. Knocking a person down is often a prelude to robbing them or kicking them to death, or just into massive brain damage, which can occur with ONE blow from a boot.

Therefore, according to the dictates of the law, the victim was absolutely justified in engaging in an armed response to a potentially deadly attack. He acted correctly in every particular. He was physically attacked, he assessed the threat properly in the instant he had to do so, and he drew his handgun and aimed it at his assailant, preparing to fire if the attack continued, which it didn't, so he did not fire and the situation ended without any shots fired and with the assailant in full retreat. Perfect tactical response, perfect outcome.

I'd have done exactly the same thing, and been just as justified as he was. And that's my professional opinion.

It gives rise to unnecessary and potentially dangerous situations, such as the one in the article (fool pulling a gun in a crowd because he got touched up), and dangerously escalates them.

Don't punch someone in the face and you won't have the situation escalated on you. Do punch someone in the face (which can cause fatal or permanent injury) and you risk getting shot dead. Pretty simple.

One of the several problems with your reasoning is that the situation is escalated for everyone.

Doesn't matter. A person under attack is justified in defending himself even if doing so increases the risk to others. He's not justified in HARMING others in that defense, but in this case no one was harmed. No person is under any obligation legally or morally to not act in self defense just because others may be placed in greater danger by doing so. It is THEIR responsibility to provide for THEIR safety. Now, many people will decide to take additional risks because of the potential of endangering others, but they are not required to do so.

Take a bank robbery for example. I've thought about this often and have worked out my tactical plan should I be in a bank lobby when robbers enter. Unless and until shots are fired at persons, or there is a direct threat to do so to me or someone else, I will comply with the robber's command so long as they restrict their actions to taking money from the bank. But if they start shooting anyone, or try to herd people into a back room (where they frequently kill them) or they try to disarm me, I will shoot them if I'm able to do so. Obediently being massacred is not something I'll EVER agree to, no matter how many other people are involved. If all those other people were likewise carrying and trained to respond, such incidents would be much more rare.

My right to life and self defense is not conditioned upon the potential safety of others from criminal assault. I'm only responsible for the bullets I fire.

The belligerent party, the innocent bystanders, everyone. All it takes is for one of Mr. Punchy's friends to draw on Mr. Hero and it turns into a shoot-out at the OK corral.

Except it's never happened that way, so you're wrong. Armed civilians are 11 times LESS likely to shoot in a situation where they would be justified in doing so than POLICE OFFICERS, according to the FBI. This is because armed civilians don't have the protection of governmental immunity enjoyed by police officers, and shooting someone usually costs you about $50,000 in lawyer's fees even if you're eventually acquitted, so we are VERY CAREFUL to make sure we have justification to shoot and that we do so accurately and with the minimum number rounds, because we are legally liable for EACH AND EVERY BULLET we fire.

If the situation was responded to with proportionate force (as should be legislated and enforced), there would be minimal chance of that happening. Mr. Hero was irresponsible and recklessly endangered the lives of everyone present and was within your laws to do so.

The threat of the use of lethal force through the display of a firearm is a lesser application of force than even punching the guy back. That's a fact. No physical contact was made with the assailant and the display of the firearm alone put a stop to the attack. It was a perfect and perfectly lawful response in the situation given.

So, no, he wasn't right. He was within a ass backwards law - that doesn't make him right.

He was absolutely right and did exactly what he needed to do and nobody but him got hurt (sadly...he should have kicked the assailant in the balls and arrested him), so he was ipso facto and de jure right.

Wrong. He was not right, he acted within the law and in doing recklessly endangered the lives of everyone present.

No, he didn't. If he had, he would have been arrested. He wasn't. He did exactly what I or most well-trained CCW permittees would have done in a similar circumstance: He put a stop to the crime without firing a shot.

Not our concern if stupid Canadians care more about the poor, benighted violent criminal than they do peaceable law abiding citizens.

Wrong. We care more about the lives of innocents and victims which is why we have legislation governing the justifiable escalation of conflict and proportionate response instead of a law that amounts to 'I felt scared so I hauled iron (and possibly shot some people)'.

The response was proportionate. As I said, the display of a firearm to thwart an attack is a lesser application of physical force than laying hands on someone. Police do it all the time, at felony stops or whenever they THINK that the suspect might be armed. It's a display of superior force intended to threaten and intimidate the suspect into immediate surrender, and it's perfectly appropriate.

[Tero]

So every time you walk into a bank you are armed and "case the joint" ?

[Seth]

So every time you walk into a bank you are armed and "case the joint" ?

Yup. In fact, when entering convenience stores and banks I stop outside for a moment or two and look in the windows to see what's going on before I enter. When I enter I make note of who is where and what's going on as a matter of routine situational awareness.

Only prudent to do so. It's called living in "condition yellow."

[Blind groper]

The response was proportionate.

it was also totally unnecessary.

One man punches another, and that requires the use of a gun? Pathetic!

If that had happened here in NZ, there would have been ten guys from that queue who would have jumped on the puncher and held him till the police arrived. Guns not required.

[Seth]

The response was proportionate.

it was also totally unnecessary.

One man punches another, and that requires the use of a gun? Pathetic!

No, it JUSTIFIES the DISPLAY of a lawfully-carried handgun

If that had happened here in NZ, there would have been ten guys from that queue who would have jumped on the puncher and held him till the police arrived. Guns not required.

I'll refrain from trusting you or anyone else to secure my safety, thanks.

[Blind groper]

I'll refrain from trusting you or anyone else to secure my safety, thanks.

Wrong answer.

We are human. Or at least I am.

Humans are social animals. Our success in evolutionary terms relies upon two things. Technology and social cooperation. The major flaw in survivalist's philosophies is that they are mostly solitary. Being non social is actually a recipe for failure. Humans work together, and in that cooperation lies the secret to success. Without being part of a social group, and gaining the benefits of social cooperation, individuals will be removed from the gene pool.

The best way to control criminal behaviour, as history shows, is to have an effective social method of controlling it. In our communities, that translates into a professional and effective police force, and a community that helps each other. So thank you very much, but as a rational person who is aware of what has worked in the past, and what has failed miserably, I will use social cooperation to provide for my security. A measure that works 1,000 times better than individual paranoia.

[Kristie]

So every time you walk into a bank you are armed and "case the joint" ?

Yup. In fact, when entering convenience stores and banks I stop outside for a moment or two and look in the windows to see what's going on before I enter. When I enter I make note of who is where and what's going on as a matter of routine situational awareness.

Only prudent to do so. It's called living in "condition yellow."

That's not situational awareness, that's paranoia.