Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

These laws presume that anyone entering your domian is NOT there for a "Good" reason the old laws said you had to be in fear of your life or your loved ones..
Some even said the intruder had to be armed..

Now the law falls in favor of the Homeowner...

The even more controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" says you do not have to retreat, if you are threatened or attacked you can stand your ground and meet force with force... You do not have to disengage..

I think merely having that law has been a positive thing for crime reduction, from what I'm reading anyway.

There was a case here in the UK where a guy used that law, IMO in a bull#!## way. People were burgling his house and he shot them while they were climbing out of his window.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I completely respect that ... BUT ... this is a high pressure scenario, with a couple of seconds to choose, adrenaline pumping making you drunk, you are on pain meds for your leg ...

well if it's your scenario sounds like i have a pellet rifle, one leg, no fingers, and it's 15 criminals coming at me.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I think merely having that law has been a positive thing for crime reduction, from what I'm reading anyway.

There was a case here in the UK where a guy used that law, IMO in a bull#!## way. People were burgling his house and he shot them while they were climbing out of his window.

Good reduction for the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Groth

well if it's your scenario sounds like i have a pellet rifle, one leg, no fingers, and it's 15 criminals coming at me.

Nice deflection

To those who say it is"Easy" to get a gun in the USA. This is the result or crazy laws in a big city. NYC to be exact.

Glenn Beck, Arguing with Idiots. Not a bad book......

http://download.premiereradio.net/gu...ng%20Print.pdf

Page 14 out of 25. VERY RIDICULOUS!!!!!

Gun Laws should not get even MORE strict than this...... Imagine what would happen?

Not trying to offend anyone, just stating some facts.

I have one point, opinion, which might not be liked> I hate guns. My family was touched by "guns" and suffer a lot. My opinion is, automatic, not automatic it is to easy tool to kill, attack others, end someone else life. I know many people say and used gun to defense their life, but it is nothing to compare to how many life's, families were destroyed by "explosive powder" in the bullet. Sorry as i had to add my two cents after listening to radio about Aurora tragedy and some others...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Yes, Bob we have "Castle Laws" and "Make My Day Laws" that protect you in many states, to allow you to protect yourself and your loved ones, and they have been slowly adapted to beat many Lawsuits also..

The controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" is one such adaption

You may have missed my point or I yours. You cannot in most cases compare a scenario which is legal in the US to what in other countries would be an illegal scenario. Here you would not be protecting yourself from lawsuits but the very good possibility of defending yourself against criminal charges brought by the Crown. Basically you have to depend on 911 get stuffed and hope the doughnut dusters can get to you in time from the doughnut shop. You are allowed to defend your "castle" up to a point but that has less and less meaning here today. I am not saying that it is a good thing but again it just is what it is. This is what makes doing direct comparisons very difficult.

Bob

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I think merely having that law has been a positive thing for crime reduction, from what I'm reading anyway.

This is the thought, behind the "More Guns Less Crime" statements and here in the US that trend is evident, Where people are precieved to own and carry and use guns (Rural areas) the crime stats are quite low.. Where the Gun laws are very strict and only criminals have guns (Large Cities) the Crime rates are much higher..

This however also could be attributed to other things as well, and you get the Pro-gun vs Anti-Gun debates

There is no simple solution, but "More Gun Laws" are not it, at least not here in the Wild Wild West of the US

BTW where I live I better be able to protect myself and fight fires too, because I am so far out in the boonies that it would be at least 30 minutes for help to arrive

Oh and to really scare my EU friends, I have maybe 10 houses within a 2 mile radius of my place and every single one owns multiple guns..
It is amazing that we haven't all shot each other Huh???

Most state laws on reasonable force are pretty specific that your fear must be a reasonable fear. Emphasis on the word reasonable. Here's a long winded quote on the actual Code in Indiana Law; which I suspect is similar to other states that have "castle" and "no retreat" doctrine. A lot of gun-toting folks in IN actually learn this law before or right after getting a carry license. Notice that in Indiana we can also shoot people who are committing a forcible felony; this does tend to reduce crime a bit... Who says the wild west has disappeared?

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

I would feed the cute communist.

EDIT: I got carried away with the "wild west" thing. I actually live in what we call the "mid-west".

Originally Posted by BobH

Some of us Canuks have not forgotten our talented Newfie sniper....

I wonder if he learned on the seal population the Newfies commonly complain (brag) about? I know, and count among my very good friends, both Canadians and Finns that I would most sincerely not want shooting at me. Okay, I'll add wackos from Idaho too, I guess.

Enjoying, or respecting, or being talented with, a good tool capable of producing bodily injury, does not automatically preclude the possibility of a person also wishing for, having or enjoying a peaceful nature.