Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A new ACW..

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/10/2013 11:57:19 PM   
danlongman

 

Posts: 396
Joined: 3/27/2012
From: Over the hills and far away
Status: offline
He rang on the doorbell and banged on the door to see if anybody (including a dog) was home. There was no dog.
People don't mess with dogs. Your dog might eat your baby but that is something else entirely.
When I was six years old I used to strap on my Mattel six guns and chest puffed out and head held high I would
patrol the neighbourhood just looking for evil doers to stick their foreign-looking heads out so I could
blast the rascals back to whatever commie hellhole they came from. Probably Asia or Africa. I wish I could have kept doing that.
I would be a hero and get to sleep with all the hot chicks.

_____________________________

"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 151
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 12:04:39 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
I cannot come up with a better example that my previous response how a gun just may have saved alife not a week ago. The situation went from a man having control of the situation too a mother having control with him begging. Remember they were in their Home. He got what he deserved.
quote:

ORIGINAL: danlongman

He rang on the doorbell and banged on the door to see if anybody (including a dog) was home. There was no dog.
People don't mess with dogs. Your dog might eat your baby but that is something else entirely.
When I was six years old I used to strap on my Mattel six guns and chest puffed out and head held high I would
patrol the neighbourhood just looking for evil doers to stick their foreign-looking heads out so I could
blast the rascals back to whatever commie hellhole they came from. Probably Asia or Africa. I wish I could have kept doing that.
I would be a hero and get to sleep with all the hot chicks.



< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 1/11/2013 1:03:28 AM >


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to danlongman)
Post #: 152
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 12:25:48 AM   
mgarnett

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?



I think you're probably right, being armed appears to have saved her more grief, but remember, you need to consider both sides. It's correct, there could have been more robbery, murder etc., but there could also have been....nothing. He could have opened the door, saw them, and hot footed it out of there and nobody gets killed. Not everybody who breaks into a house is going to kill people they find inside.

I'm not saying this is what I think would have happened, I'm just playing devils advocate.

Also, I think this is a good example of consequence, I've read some of the statistics people have found during the course of this discussion showing the frequency of violent crime in the UK is greater than that in the US. There is a footnote to the stats that I have read though, the US figures do not include minor assaults (whereas the UK ones do) and whilst you might be more likely (I don't know if this is the case if you include minor assaults in the US figures) to be a victim of violence in the UK, you are much more likely to be killed in the US. The US has, by far higher, rates of intentional death (I can't recall what exact phrase the stats use).

Cheers

Mark

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 153
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 12:45:04 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.

I am not a cop who has been trained to "ramp" the violence up as the bad guy ignores the obvious. I am a trained Infantryman who is trained to meet everything with maximum force level, I start at shoot to kill and it is up to the bad guy to rapidly ramp down his attitude before he dies. It worked quite well in Iraq, I watched air force cops try to use force escalation with the detainees or day workers that got tossed off the base, if we got called in, say at the front gate, we went in and stuck the barrel of a M4 in the guys face, he usually got real calm real fast, in the prison, when the riots got too bad and they decided that deadly force was needed, we came in and the 4-8 hour riot ended when the first 3-4 bad guys got shot with live ammo.

But like stated a few pages ago, in the US, you cannot tell the difference between innocent versus criminal from criminal versus criminal. Most of the gun shootings and deaths are criminal on criminal, gang banger versus gang banger, those cases I say, pass out the ammo and let them have at each other. Rent a football stadium, make it bullet proof, at the 50 yard line, pile a bunch of guns and ammo, take the cities gangs and place each side at the 20 yard line and let them have at each other. Then shoot the winners.

(in reply to mgarnett)
Post #: 154
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:11:12 AM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16610
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heyhellowhatsnew

At least they had the common sense to know that our constitution is something meant to be evolved, because they had to foresight to know that human thought evolved and things change.


Yeah, that's right. A document designed to enshrine the protection of people from tyranny was "meant to be evolved"

Perhaps' that is why they included a formal mechanism to change it? Have you ever noticed there is a high bar to achieve in order to ammend the Constitution? Do you think they put that in for ***** and giggles?

(in reply to heyhellowhatsnew)
Post #: 155
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:18:59 AM   
Qwixt

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

ALot of cases I think a dog would not work. He rang and rang the doorbell and beat on the door. I am just amazed by your response how we are just bunting our heads together against each other-Gun people-nongun people. I understand your opinion. You get a dog, ill take a dog and a 45 auto. We will agree Not to agree.



In her case, she has kids, so the gun should have had a trigger lock. So it's good that she had time to go get the gun, remove the trigger lock, get the bullets, load the gun, then hide in the closet. Maybe the gun was in the closet, so she saved a step or two.

You seem to think that I am saying get rid of your .45 or that she should not have had a gun. I am not saying that at all. I have no problem with "normal" guns. High capacity auto and semi-automatic weapons are another story however.

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 156
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:22:15 AM   
H Gilmer

 

Posts: 586
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

ALot of cases I think a dog would not work. He rang and rang the doorbell and beat on the door. I am just amazed by your response how we are just bunting our heads together against each other-Gun people-nongun people. I understand your opinion. You get a dog, ill take a dog and a 45 auto. We will agree Not to agree.



In her case, she has kids, so the gun should have had a trigger lock. So it's good that she had time to go get the gun, remove the trigger lock, get the bullets, load the gun, then hide in the closet. Maybe the gun was in the closet, so she saved a step or two.

You seem to think that I am saying get rid of your .45 or that she should not have had a gun. I am not saying that at all. I have no problem with "normal" guns. High capacity auto and semi-automatic weapons are another story however.


You guys think anything over 6 rounds is high capacity. Lol.

(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 157
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:34:42 AM   
Qwixt

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

You guys think anything over 6 rounds is high capacity. Lol.


I was in the army and fired all sorts of weapons, so you can keep your condescending "lol". The number is arbitrary, 5,6, or 10. The point is to make noobs take more time to fire a lot of shots.

(in reply to H Gilmer)
Post #: 158
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:36:25 AM   
H Gilmer

 

Posts: 586
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: online
I'll say lol all I want. When anyone ever says they think anything over 6 shots is high capacity, I'm going to laugh.

(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 159
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:40:44 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
If she taught he kids try gun safety, she has no need for trigger locks, I have never had them and my kids knew that anyone that touches or goes near daddies guns gets the hide ripped off their backside. All the little nieces and nephews knew guns are off limits. Any kid around me above the age of 8 learns gun safety. They know if they find one, say on the street, send someone after a known adult or call 911 and stay there and not let anyone touch it. By 16, I would trust my kids to make the weapon safe over just about anyone else.

But since most of the "civilized" world thinks guns are evil, kids seek them out to play with the denied things. I took my kids and their friends shooting all the time from about 8 and up.

And yes, most anti gunners want to limit to 10 and under, sorry, best defense against a loon with a gun is another gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. But they also always add the little cravat about semi auto, which covers a HUGE arrange of guns.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 1/11/2013 1:41:59 AM >

(in reply to H Gilmer)
Post #: 160
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:50:48 AM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16610
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

If the founding father's quoted previously in this thread were brought forward in time to see the carnage of the breakup of Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the slaughter in Sarajevo etc


Interesting that you cite Yugoslavia where a strong, anti-democratic police state only managed to keep the lid on dissent at the point of a gun.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 161
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:58:10 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
If the founding father would come forward and have seen that, they would have been even more resolved to make sure the people were armed with the EXACT same weapons the military used in their day and age.

That above "ethnic cleansing etc" is exactly why people need to be armed with military style weapons. So they can fight back semi effectively against rogue authority. But disarmed sheep are exactly that, disarmed sheep, and there are big bad wolves in this world.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 162
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 2:43:26 AM   
mgarnett

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.



Minor and major aren't my definitions, they're usually enacted in some sort of criminal code or case law applicable to each country or state. So for example, slapping somebody in the face or pushing them in the back or punching a few times in chest could, depending on the definition of assault in each country, be considered a minor assault. I don't mean minor in that they don't have a real effect on the victim, only the way the law categorizes them. In AU, these are referred to as common assaults and I think this is the type of category that's missing from some figures.

Whereas giving somebody a black eye would be considered more serious. Assaults that cause even more serious or even permanent injury are categorized as even more serious.

So there are different offences depending on how serious the assault is. I would think this is similar in most countries, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So I'm not saying minor or major from the victims perspective, but from the legal or "offense" perspective.

quote:



I am not a cop who has been trained to "ramp" the violence up as the bad guy ignores the obvious. I am a trained Infantryman who is trained to meet everything with maximum force level, I start at shoot to kill and it is up to the bad guy to rapidly ramp down his attitude before he dies. It worked quite well in Iraq, I watched air force cops try to use force escalation with the detainees or day workers that got tossed off the base, if we got called in, say at the front gate, we went in and stuck the barrel of a M4 in the guys face, he usually got real calm real fast, in the prison, when the riots got too bad and they decided that deadly force was needed, we came in and the 4-8 hour riot ended when the first 3-4 bad guys got shot with live ammo.

But like stated a few pages ago, in the US, you cannot tell the difference between innocent versus criminal from criminal versus criminal. Most of the gun shootings and deaths are criminal on criminal, gang banger versus gang banger, those cases I say, pass out the ammo and let them have at each other. Rent a football stadium, make it bullet proof, at the 50 yard line, pile a bunch of guns and ammo, take the cities gangs and place each side at the 20 yard line and let them have at each other. Then shoot the winners.


Couldn't agree more, it's easy for a court to say "well he wasn't armed, he was only going to punch you, so you had no right to shoot him". In the moment, you're only think of one thing, self preservation. Interestingly, as you know, police officers here carry guns, but the interesting part is, a police officer is not allowed to "shoot to main or injure" but instead he MUST shoot to kill. The thinking behind this is, if something is so serious that you need to shoot your gun to prevent something really bad happening and you are only shooting to injure, then it mustn't have been bad enough to shoot your gun in the first place. Hence, shoot to kill.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 163
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 2:47:44 AM   
Qwixt

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline
So you can't fight back effectively without military style weapons, and by weapons I assume you mean guns not grenades, mortars...? The terrorists have military weapons, and they are getting their butts kicked. I really don't think it matters when talking about facing off against tanks, helicopters, and such things. I think you need more than just military guns in those cases. You need backing, and anti-tank and anti-air weapons.

< Message edited by Qwixt -- 1/11/2013 2:49:20 AM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 164
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 2:54:16 AM   
mgarnett

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

But since most of the "civilized" world thinks guns are evil, kids seek them out to play with the denied things. I took my kids and their friends shooting all the time from about 8 and up.



I'm not sure I agree with this, I consider the lunatics who go to schools with a gun and shoot innocent children as evil, not the gun he/she is carrying. From what I've read, I think this is the way most people who've responded in this thread so far think.

So it comes down to this, how can we reduce, or even prevent, the number of times that a lunatic can grab a gun and shoot people. This is the million dollar question for which there is no easy answer.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 165
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 4:13:38 AM   
Missouri_Rebel


Posts: 2572
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Southern Missouri
Status: offline
Here is where I sign off. While I am very much of a proponent of the Second Amendment I understand it comes with great responsibilities. I demand that others do also and can understand the ire when a free people seem to not be able to handle the freedoms they have, i.e. using a weapon to slay innocent people.

I also do not treat such responsibilities callously. Even though I have been around guns my whole life and may or may not have a pistol on or near me, I have never been in a situation where I have had to pull it and I lived for a time in St. Louis city full of mother beaters and father rapers. I hope I go my whole life without the need to do so and I actually fully expect not to. Brandishing a gun around here is very dangerous because no one likes to have a weapon pulled on them and doing so for some silly reason would put a target on your back for retaliation from friends and family of the threatened. I'm not talking about a real need for it, I'm talking about treating the lethal weapon as some sort of leveraging device. I've seen it happen before. A guy got all mouthy years ago and pulled a gun on a neighbor. The other guys family came over and dragged him out of his house and nearly beat him to death with only the pleas of his wife to stop them. Plus, pulling a gun when you are not prepared to pull the trigger is the fastest way to be shot.

You see, I think people that would so easily pull a gun to be worse than the biggest anti gun person there is. The one has a legitimate concern that there are people that aren't worthy of their freedoms a gun and the other is the bane of all responsible gun owners. I'm from the country and I am certainly not afraid to fight. I'm actually rather good at it. But I fight the good fight and have only done so in defense. Sure I have had a problem with just walking away sometimes, but that is just my m.o. for better or for worse. Never during those altercations was the thought of deadly force entered into my mind, and they all didn't end so good. And that to me is the way a free person with such wonderful, and powerful Rights ought to be.

Cut the bravado. Be prepared. Use sound judgement. Think of the consequences. Live free.

Peace,
mo reb

< Message edited by Missouri_Rebel -- 1/11/2013 4:35:11 AM >


_____________________________

**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford

(in reply to mgarnett)
Post #: 166
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 4:32:42 AM   
Missouri_Rebel


Posts: 2572
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Southern Missouri
Status: offline
All of you are responding to the story wrong as that is not what happened. The womans door was pried open with a crowbar. Once he entered their home he chased one of the 9 year old twins up the stairs where the mom and the twins retreated first to the locked bedroom and then into the locked bathroom. The criminal broke through those two doors and entered the final fall back area of a crawlspace in part of the attic. When the perp opened that door the woman opened fire. She hit him 5 times and he was still able to leave and get partially away in his SUV. The drugs he was on and the smaller caliber pistol ensured that he was still going despite the fact that he was shot several times in the face and neck.

Had there been multiple assailants, something more and more common, (google mob smash and grabs) she would have been in real trouble. Had the drugs he was on allowed him to keep coming there is no telling what he would have done to all of them. That is why people don't need the govt. dictating how many shots are available to a owner and why I am firmly against regulating it. There is a need for higher capacity magazines for self defense. As far as a locked away, trigger locked and no ammo gun? Sheesh. Why bother? I prefer a shotgun by the bed at night and a .45 under the pillow, fully loaded and one in the chamber.

Just to clarify the situation.

_____________________________

**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford

(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 167
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 4:35:31 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Oh, I am very responsible, I have had need to draw my pistol in defense. 4 nice little gang bang punks, I drew when one popped off with a "bust a cap in him". Granted 2 of the 4 had little .32 which they did not have in their hands, 1 of the 4 pissed his pants. 3 of the 4 had warrants out, 1 for rape, one for assault and burglary, and don't remember the 3rd one.

Over the years, I have learned that criminals are the ultimate cowards, gang bangers are the worse. They prey on the easy, and avoid/run from anything with teeth. No gang banger goes 1 versus 1. They go 1 versus how ever many they are. I never said I would "slay innocent people", but a thug is no innocent. I have been in more than my share of fist fights, but those were way back in the early 80's and while active duty, since the 90's, you are more apt to face a deadly weapon of some sort. The last time some dumb redneck decided to try his luck about 1 am outside a 7-11, I just announced that I was armed and he needed to go sleep it off. That stopped it right there. Mainly due to his friends. I have a concealed carry, I put that permit to use. I have gotten too old to bust knuckles with every tom dick and harry, my hands hurt and I don't heal like I used to when a youngster.

But I will meet any threat with force, up to and including deadly force. There is no such thing as a fair fight. Not outside a boxing ring maybe.

Now to Qwixt, terrorists are no more than armed thugs, they are not soldiers. I have been in fire fights with the thugs and we did not have armor, artillery or even air support. It was just 20 of us versus how ever many of them there was. And they still lost more than us. We had no KIA, but they did. I will leave that there. I have faith and belief that I never have to fear the US military, because 90% of them will refuse the order anyway. But notice that the US has never had to face a Serbia, Bosnia, Rwanda situation. And we never will due to the fact that we can fight back effectively.

(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 168
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 4:43:20 AM   
Missouri_Rebel


Posts: 2572
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Southern Missouri
Status: offline
Stand down soldier. I wasn't speaking of you.

_____________________________

**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 169
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 4:56:39 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
My bad, read that way.

(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 170
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 5:03:03 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 18042
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


Just to clarify the situation.
warspite1



_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 171
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 1:34:32 PM   
BASB


Posts: 1566
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?
quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Titan,
yes I am married and I have two teen aged kids, I feel very fortunate I live where I do, and raised my kids in a pretty safe environment. I'm happy with the way my government has legislated strongly against the ownership of firearms.
Just a side note, I'm not inexperienced when it comes to firearms, I once was a firearms instructor in my states prison service. As I've got older I have grown more intolerant to the use of firearms.

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood


(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 172
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 2:40:15 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

<snip> how can we reduce, or even prevent, the number of times that a lunatic can grab a gun and shoot people. This is the million dollar <snip>



Perhaps this is too narrow a focus. Could we re-state this and say, "How do we stop those bent on killing, from killing?"

The "weapon" of choice of mass killing over the globe, seems to be explosives. Almost everyday we see explosives used somewhere in the area between North Africa and Pakistan, to kill multiple people. And McVeigh showed the would be's that it can be done in USA.

Perhaps we shouldn't focus on a particular weapon, but on the problem of killers (those who want to commit mass murder).

If we take away one weapon type, do you really think killers will become non-killers?

==
Also, I did some arithmetic. If the USA government(s) (feds or states together) tried to "buy" 150m weapons from us at $1,000 USD each, that would be 150b USD, which is about a quarter of the latest defense budget. From a practical perspective, I don't see that happening.

(I wish our leaders could debate this issue with as much incite and reliance on evidence - as we can - I'm still impressed !)



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to mgarnett)
Post #: 173
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 6:23:44 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Another shooting..if this keeps happening I'm afraid the pro Gun lobby are going to have an even tougher battle. Just like here when a man went crazy and shot a few people and afterwards everyone ha dot hand in their guns.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 174
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 6:25:30 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 284
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it
quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?



I think you're probably right, being armed appears to have saved her more grief, but remember, you need to consider both sides. It's correct, there could have been more robbery, murder etc., but there could also have been....nothing. He could have opened the door, saw them, and hot footed it out of there and nobody gets killed. Not everybody who breaks into a house is going to kill people they find inside.

I'm not saying this is what I think would have happened, I'm just playing devils advocate.

Also, I think this is a good example of consequence, I've read some of the statistics people have found during the course of this discussion showing the frequency of violent crime in the UK is greater than that in the US. There is a footnote to the stats that I have read though, the US figures do not include minor assaults (whereas the UK ones do) and whilst you might be more likely (I don't know if this is the case if you include minor assaults in the US figures) to be a victim of violence in the UK, you are much more likely to be killed in the US. The US has, by far higher, rates of intentional death (I can't recall what exact phrase the stats use).

Cheers

Mark



< Message edited by barkorn45 -- 1/11/2013 6:30:28 PM >

(in reply to mgarnett)
Post #: 175
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 7:05:00 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 548
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it



Laws in the US vary by state, but many states have in place what is referred to as "the castle doctrine".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions

quote:


A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.



Florida's (my state of residence) version goes further:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

quote:


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.


The burglar in your example "unlawfully entered the premises" as they did it without permission.
(Granted it was not "forced"; perhaps a loophole for a jury to decide).

If the homeowner steps in front if the TV to prevent its theft, and the burglar pushes (forces) him out of the way with the intent of conducting an unlawful act (stealing he TV ); the the homeowner is probably (IMHO) entitled to use deadly force.

In all likelihood, a homeowner who was tried in this case for shooting the burglar would have the sympathy of the jury and a conviction would be difficult. Many prosecutors would hesitate to try this case as it would garner them a lot of negative publicity. Many/most local prosecutors in the US are elected positions, so bad publicity with the electorate is often a consideration they face when deciding to prosecute or not.

_____________________________


(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 176
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 7:10:10 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 548
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline
If I recall, Texas goes even further.

It's my understanding that the use of deadly force is allowed to prevent burglary if on your premises, or on the premises of a neighbor.

There was a case a couple years ago where a 60somethig year old man used a firearm (a rifle I believe) to shoot several burglars who had broken into and were robbing his neighbor. In this case, the old man had 911 on the line, and announced what was going to do. I think that he gunshots were clearly audible in the background of the recording.

Also, if I recall, the burglars were career criminals with a long list of criminal activity.


_____________________________


(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 177
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 7:35:10 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4660
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline
Those who say the second amendment is about "hunting" show their ignorance of our bill of rights.

George Mason, father of the American Bill of Rights:
1. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
2. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Patrick Henry:
1. "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
2. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And of course from the man himself--GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Okay you people who say the founders did not intend that everyone have a gun, how the hell do you get around the above quotes???

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 178
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 7:52:59 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2263
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.

The idea of proportional force is idiocy. One can never even know if the attacker wants to hit him once or beat him to death. Not to mention stuff like getting knocked down and dying from hitting pavement with head.

Or stuff like the basic right to not be assaulted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Oh yeah, those greedy people and their 3 jobs. How dare them! I can see them now coming home after spending 12 or more hours at work and away from their family with their smiles and cheers of jubilation. I bet they skip up the driveway just thinking about their next long day.

If only the government would come in and give their jobs to someone less deserving. Maybe an Executive Order is needed.

More like if only people who occupy multiple work places would stop complaining that some other people don't work. And would stop painting all people who don't have jobs as ones who don't want to work when they are creating more unemployment.

Also, having a job has nothing to do with deserving it. Unless one considers doing some work before in the same field as more "deserving" than doing some other kind of work before.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 179
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/11/2013 7:55:51 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 284
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
I agree that guy would have relinguished his health if he walked into my house in that manner.
but there are states with retreat laws also which my hypothetical guest would have resided in
.
quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it



Laws in the US vary by state, but many states have in place what is referred to as "the castle doctrine".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions

quote:


A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.



Florida's (my state of residence) version goes further:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

quote:


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.


The burglar in your example "unlawfully entered the premises" as they did it without permission.
(Granted it was not "forced"; perhaps a loophole for a jury to decide).

If the homeowner steps in front if the TV to prevent its theft, and the burglar pushes (forces) him out of the way with the intent of conducting an unlawful act (stealing he TV ); the the homeowner is probably (IMHO) entitled to use deadly force.

In all likelihood, a homeowner who was tried in this case for shooting the burglar would have the sympathy of the jury and a conviction would be difficult. Many prosecutors would hesitate to try this case as it would garner them a lot of negative publicity. Many/most local prosecutors in the US are elected positions, so bad publicity with the electorate is often a consideration they face when deciding to prosecute or not.


(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.137