Carrying guns leads to confrontations....

[mozg]

Um.. which gun thread was it where gun proponents (which I am one, just not as nuts as some others here) posted about a dozen or so news stories about people hauling iron on some punk and scaring him off? I think anyone of those would do. Use the search function and fuck off.

So you can prove that every one of those cases is 'needless escalation' of a situation that would otherwise end without the victim having suffered serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape or murder?

That people use firearms for lawful self defense does not, in and of itself, support your claim of Dirty Harry fantasies and needless escalation. It is only 'needless escalation' if the person who employs the deadly force has no cause to be reasonably in fear of kidnapping, rape, serious bodily injury or death.

And if that is the case, drawing your firearm on or shooting a person without such cause is a criminal act that results in prosecution. How many of the people in those stories were charged or prosecuted?

[Jason]

That people use firearms for lawful self defense does not, in and of itself, support your claim of Dirty Harry fantasies and needless escalation. It is only 'needless escalation' if the person who employs the deadly force has no cause to be reasonably in fear of kidnapping, rape, serious bodily injury or death.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The lack of proportional response. What the law boils down to is "fuck, I'm scared, I'm pulling my gun" and "fuck, I'm mad (insulted, embarassed, etc..), the law covers me, I'm pulling my gun". I've seen it evinced over and over in these news articles. Now if you'll kindly define, in detail, what constitutes "reasonable fear of (bad shit)" and give me a definition of (bad shit) that'd be great. Maybe then we can address how 'needful' these Dirty Harry/Citizen cop types really are. In the mean time, I'm going to take a shit and have a coffee - it's a bit early for a gun argument without caffeine and a dump.

[Tero]

In other words "we don't need no bad...searches because we are right."

You already support the gun solution. I don't. I'm the voter. I do not need to sell the gun idea. You do. Have a nice.... rubbing session...with your gun.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Um.. which gun thread was it where gun proponents (which I am one, just not as nuts as some others here) posted about a dozen or so news stories about people hauling iron on some punk and scaring him off? I think anyone of those would do. Use the search function and fuck off.

[/quote]
The confrontation started before the guns appeared the way you tell it. This begs the question "would the confrontation have happened at all if the aggressor knew the target was packing heat?"

[Svartalf]

You gonna praise open carry?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You gonna praise open carry?

I have no problem with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You gonna praise open carry?

I prefer open carry to concealed carry, for the main reason that I can see who is armed.

[Jason]

You gonna praise open carry?

I prefer open carry to concealed carry, for the main reason that I can see who is armed.

So do I, but because it makes for better gunfights. Draw!

[Kristie]

You gonna praise open carry?

I prefer open carry to concealed carry, for the main reason that I can see who is armed.

So do I, but because it makes for better gunfights. Draw!

I so want to post a paint drawing of you wearing spurs, but I'm in my phone!

[Jason]

I don't remember sending you that pic..

[mozg]

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The lack of proportional response. What the law boils down to is "fuck, I'm scared, I'm pulling my gun" and "fuck, I'm mad (insulted, embarassed, etc..), the law covers me, I'm pulling my gun". I've seen it evinced over and over in these news articles. Now if you'll kindly define, in detail, what constitutes "reasonable fear of (bad shit)" and give me a definition of (bad shit) that'd be great. Maybe then we can address how 'needful' these Dirty Harry/Citizen cop types really are. In the mean time, I'm going to take a shit and have a coffee - it's a bit early for a gun argument without caffeine and a dump.

Your interpretation of the law and what is justifiable is incorrect.

Reasonable fear means that a person's actions are judged according to the 'Reasonable Man' standard. The situation is judged based upon how this conceptual person who is an amalgamation of the community standards in which the events unfolded would evaluate the situation.

The list of circumstances under which a person is legally able to use deadly force (anything from drawing a firearm to actually killing someone) were defined by me in the previous post, twice.

In Pennsylvania he use of deadly force is considered legally justified when a Reasonable Man, in a place that he or she is legally permitted to be, would have cause to fear:

Serious Bodily Injury of Self or Another Person
Kidnapping of Self or Another Person
Rap of Self or Another Person
Death of Self or Another Person

Being attacked by multiple assailants, an armed assailant, or having a significant disadvantage physically (i.e. a grandmother being attacked by a 20 year old gang member) will have influence on how reasonable the fear is. If you're being yelled at over a parking space, no, it's not justifiable to draw a firearm. Carjacker with a knife trying to force his way into your car? You're probably in the clear legally if you shoot him. Riding your bicycle alone on a park bike path when five teenagers knock you off your bike and start beating you? You're probably also legally in the clear.

This is the general rule for every state that does not have a duty to retreat written into law. In states where there is a duty to retreat, the added factor is that the person employing the deadly force in self defense did not retreat. Duty to retreat is typically only applicable to encounters outside one's home.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Open carry is Darwinian.

[Jason]

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The lack of proportional response. What the law boils down to is "fuck, I'm scared, I'm pulling my gun" and "fuck, I'm mad (insulted, embarassed, etc..), the law covers me, I'm pulling my gun". I've seen it evinced over and over in these news articles. Now if you'll kindly define, in detail, what constitutes "reasonable fear of (bad shit)" and give me a definition of (bad shit) that'd be great. Maybe then we can address how 'needful' these Dirty Harry/Citizen cop types really are. In the mean time, I'm going to take a shit and have a coffee - it's a bit early for a gun argument without caffeine and a dump.

Your interpretation of the law and what is justifiable is incorrect.

Nope. The evidence is there in the press coverage.

Reasonable fear means that a person's actions are judged according to the 'Reasonable Man' standard. The situation is judged based upon how this conceptual person who is an amalgamation of the community standards in which the events unfolded would evaluate the situation.

That's an evasive answer. Of course I know that ambiguous bullshit. What I want to know is what these 'amalgamated standards' are. Elucidate. Define.

The list of circumstances under which a person is legally able to use deadly force (anything from drawing a firearm to actually killing someone) were defined by me in the previous post, twice.

No they weren't. I'm not looking for facile answers. You're evading. Elucidate. Define.

In Pennsylvania he use of deadly force is considered legally justified when a Reasonable Man, in a place that he or she is legally permitted to be, would have cause to fear:

Serious Bodily Injury of Self or Another Person
Kidnapping of Self or Another Person
Rap of Self or Another Person
Death of Self or Another Person

Define 'Serious' in 'Serious Bodily Injury' - since this is really what I'm talking about, not cases where the life of the person is undeniably endangered.

Being attacked by multiple assailants, an armed assailant, or having a significant disadvantage physically (i.e. a grandmother being attacked by a 20 year old gang member) will have influence on how reasonable the fear is. If you're being yelled at over a parking space, no, it's not justifiable to draw a firearm. Carjacker with a knife trying to force his way into your car? You're probably in the clear legally if you shoot him. Riding your bicycle alone on a park bike path when five teenagers knock you off your bike and start beating you? You're probably also legally in the clear.

Yes, yes. That's all well and good. How about the more ambiguous situations I'm actually talking about. You know, the ones where some fools are getting tense and someone throws a punch and someone else pulls a gun. Those type of situations. I'm looking for that thin line.. does it exist?

This is the general rule for every state that does not have a duty to retreat written into law. In states where there is a duty to retreat, the added factor is that the person employing the deadly force in self defense did not retreat. Duty to retreat is typically only applicable to encounters outside one's home.

Duty to retreat is very sensible. I've talked about it elsewhere.

[Seth]

This thread is not about gun rights or the law. The gun proponents have failed to convince me that giving idiots (50% of owners) the right to carry a concealed weapon improves my safety on the street. In fact there is nothing in the NRA agenda that improves my life. Sure, you can educate all you like. If you already have a gun it makes sense.

Giving the idiot the gun wipes out any benefit from the smart responsible half.

Give me a news story where the armed vigilante saved a citizen from evil doers.

Poisoning the well fallacy. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 50% of gun owners are "idiots."

And here's your evidence...again. Just one page of the latest of tens of thousands of similar reports from the Armed Citizen.

Zachary Rogers, 26, was working late one night at the 21st Amendment liquor store. It was just past midnight when an armed man wearing a ski mask entered the store and forced Rogers and another store employee, Alicia Grabarczyk, 25, down a hallway toward an office where the safe was kept. With a concealed handgun in his front pocket, Rogers chose his moment of opportunity carefully. In one quick motion, Rogers pushed Grabarczyk to the floor and fired at the armed robber. He then helped Grabarczyk into the office and out of the line of fire. Although the burglar had been struck, Rogers saw him raise his firearm. Rogers fired three more rounds at the gunman which proved fatal. Neither Rogers nor Grabarczyk were harmed. (Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 10/11/12)

While at home with his wife and daughter, a homeowner prepared to go outside to investigate a sudden power outage. His wife asked him to carry his firearm with him as a precaution. As he opened the front door to step outside, three men charged him in an attempt to gain entry. The homeowner pushed his wife aside as he fell backward and fired at the intruders. His daughter, a student in her early 20s, hid in another room and called police. One of the three home invaders suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was listed in serious condition. The remaining two suspects managed to escape. The homeowner and his family were not seriously injured. (Sun Sentinel, Miramar, FL, 10/2/12)

Kendra St. Clair, a 12-year-old at home alone one day during her fall break, called her mother at work to say there was a man repeatedly ringing the doorbell and banging on the door. When no one answered the door, she said he disappeared. St. Clair’s mother instructed her daughter to get her .40-cal. Glock pistol and go into a bathroom closet. St. Clair heard him break in through the back door. As the man made his way through her home, 911 dispatchers kept St. Clair on the phone. He was inside the home for approximately six minutes before he made his way to the bathroom where St. Clair was hiding. When she saw the door knob begin to turn, she fired the gun. The 32-year-old intruder was taken into custody after being treated for a gunshot to the chest. (The Oklahoman, Durant, OK, 10/20/12)

George Polanin, 66, went to bed early one evening only to be awakened by noises coming from inside his home. He was upstairs and followed the sound of footsteps to the basement. When he reached the stairs, Polanin said he could see only the intruder’s feet. “ … I got my weapon and basically told him I had a weapon, it was loaded and I will use it,” Polanin said. He then ordered the intruder to come out as he dialed 911. Polanin held the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. (Kenosha News, Kenosha, WI, 10/17/12)

Cindy Schachter, an employee at Furnari Jewelers, was working when two men entered the store around 4 p.m. Schachter’s boss, Anthony Furnari, was sitting at his desk facing the showroom. Something about the men made Schachter uneasy, so she gave her boss a quiet warning right before they pulled clothing over their faces and jumped over the counter. Furnari quickly pulled his .38-cal. handgun from his desk and fired several rounds at one of the suspects as he came toward him. Furnari was severely beaten as both men tried to gain control of his firearm. When Furnari fought back, the men grabbed a display of gold chains and fled. One suspect was later taken into custody after seeking treatment for several bullet wounds. It was last reported that the second suspect was still at large. Furnari suffered a broken nose, a concussion, multiple stitches to the face and hand, and a fractured rib. Schachter was reportedly unharmed. (The Republican, Chicopee, MA, 10/17/12)

Jack and Linda Dillon were roused from their sleep at approximately 2:45 a.m. when they realized someone had just broken into their home. The intruder gained entry through an unlocked window. He allegedly entered the home with intent to steal electronics. Linda called 911 as Jack retrieved a firearm and confronted the 29-year-old intruder in their living room. Jack fired when the man lunged at him. The intruder’s wound proved fatal. (The Morning Journal, Elyria, OH, 10/20/12)

[Seth]

Oh look it's a response by Seth. Let me see

'derp. derpa derp. derpa derpa trolling derp. derp derp. derp.'

Right. Moving along.

Oh look, devoid of even the smallest amount of rational argumentation or response to the subject, Făkünamę tries to make people think he has a point by engaging in ad hominem argumentation, the weakest of all forms of argumentation.