Here's a case where Stand your ground probably should not have been evoked

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

On the topic of suicide, this is the one area I'm definitely pro-choice on. If euthanasia was legalized it would make everyone safer. No more toxic air cocktails or projectiles flying around to harm other people after you are gone.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Look, if your first line of self-defense is your gun, more power to you. I'll even defend your right to do so. Just don't tell me that you primary choice is the best choice for most citizens, because it's not. We can have all the gun ownership protection laws on the books, but the one thing that will hinder you from having that first line of self-defense in the real world is that many private establishments don't allow weapons onto their property. Private property trumps the 2nd Amendment as it does the 1st Amendment.

Once again, you talk about dishonesty and fibbing, and then go on to make a uniformrd generalization in an area you seem to have virtually no expertise in. Back up your point with something tangible- why is a firearm not the best choice for "most citizens?" Show me some data, or keep your judgements about honesty out of the debate.

I posted statistical data that supports that claim, but it looks like you're just too ideologically blind to accept the truth. I have no agenda here - I am not advocating banning of guns and I support conceal carry laws. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that if you bring a gun into your home, you've increased the risk of harm to yourself or family. You've conceded that some people will misuse firearms and that isn't just limited to lawless criminals, but to suicides, domestic violence, irresponsibility, etc. Your statistical chances of having your life endangered by some crazed person who decides to make you his target is far less likely than one of your family members or yourself being injured by your own gun.

Perpetrators with a gun will always have the element of surprise on their side, so law-abiding, gun-toting citizens will be at a disadvantage. A random shooter entering a crowded establishment presents all kinds of logistical problems even if you were able to draw your gun and shoot back at them, like people behind them. I don't know what other solution there is, however, to preventing those kinds of acts of violence, but just admit that statistics are against you and if you can manage to pull off an old western, one-shot kill without killing any innocent bystanders, then God bless you.

No. Wrong again. Perps often telegraph their intentions in a variety of ways. And people who are armed can prepare and train themselves to be aware of their environment and the behavior associated with criminality. Most people who deal with this in any depth (especially civilian and police trainers) understand that and sudden, lethal ambush by criminals is extremely rare (and your scenarios seem to dwell on this rare occurance)- instead criminals to to buld up to a crime, displaying all sorts of readable behaviors prior to an encounter.

"Even if you were able to draw your gun and fire it?" Fancypants..... I personally have drawn and fired a weapon many thousands of times. I don't understand what you believe to be so "logistically challenging" about this. That's why handguns are the most effective form of defense during a violent encounter....they are concealable, ergonomic, effective, and easy to operate. And I don't intend to "pull off" any sort of "one-shot kill", ..... and neither do other armed citizens who know what they are about. If I firea weapon at a person, I intend to fire the number of rounds it takes to stop the threat. You truly think that people can't hit what they shoot at? What about police? Should they be putting around unarmed, because getting a hit without killing bystanders is just some "wild-west fantasy?" Again, you speak to things you obviously don't understand. Just because you have no confidence or competence with a firearm doesn't mean that others don't.

The chance that you won't be caught by surprise, by a crazed shooter in an crowded establishment, that you could legally bring your weapon into that establishment, and that you would be able to fire off multiple rounds in the direction of the perpetrator without hitting any innocent bystanders would be about as likely as you getting struck by lightning and living to tell about it.

It sure sounds comforting and perhaps that's all that some people want is to feel safer, even if reality says otherwise. Again, I don't have another solution to stopping a crazed shooter who decides to walk into a crowded restaurant and open fire while you are dining there and if you happen to pull off neutralizing the perpetrator without inadvertently gunning down any innocent bystanders when you empty your clip in their direction, I'll personally send you a thank you card.

Thankfully, such random acts of violence are rare. If I felt I would be able to handle such a situation to the level of trained law enforcement, I'd start carrying a gun right away. But I know that for myself and most citizens do not have the where-with-all to take the right action without extensive training. That takes a lot of preparation, which goes back to the idea of self-defense training. You think it requires too much training to be able to defend yourself without a weapon, and that's not honest when comparing to training for situations as above.

I'm not going to belabor this any further. You have the right to carry a concealed gun. You have the right to defend yourself with a gun. Just don't pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense....or go on pretending, and the truth be damned.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

[/color]

I posted statistical data that supports that claim, but it looks like you're just too ideologically blind to accept the truth. I have no agenda here - I am not advocating banning of guns and I support conceal carry laws. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that if you bring a gun into your home, you've increased the risk of harm to yourself or family. You've conceded that some people will misuse firearms and that isn't just limited to lawless criminals, but to suicides, domestic violence, irresponsibility, etc. Your statistical chances of having your life endangered by some crazed person who decides to make you his target is far less likely than one of your family members or yourself being injured by your own gun.

The chance that you won't be caught by surprise, by a crazed shooter in an crowded establishment, that you could legally bring your weapon into that establishment, and that you would be able to fire off multiple rounds in the direction of the perpetrator without hitting any innocent bystanders would be about as likely as you getting struck by lightning and living to tell about it.

It sure sounds comforting and perhaps that's all that some people want is to feel safer, even if reality says otherwise. Again, I don't have another solution to stopping a crazed shooter who decides to walk into a crowded restaurant and open fire while you are dining there and if you happen to pull off neutralizing the perpetrator without inadvertently gunning down any innocent bystanders when you empty your clip in their direction, I'll personally send you a thank you card.

Thankfully, such random acts of violence are rare. If I felt I would be able to handle such a situation to the level of trained law enforcement, I'd start carrying a gun right away. But I know that for myself and most citizens do not have the where-with-all to take the right action without extensive training. That takes a lot of preparation, which goes back to the idea of self-defense training. You think it requires too much training to be able to defend yourself without a weapon, and that's not honest when comparing to training for situations as above.

I'm not going to belabor this any further. You have the right to carry a concealed gun. You have the right to defend yourself with a gun. Just don't pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense....or go on pretending, and the truth be damned.

There is the Taser option, but you have only a single shot and a range of about 15'

[Leatherneck 693]

. And to defend the life of those that we love too.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Leatherneck 693]

[/color]

The chance that you won't be caught by surprise, by a crazed shooter in an crowded establishment, that you could legally bring your weapon into that establishment, and that you would be able to fire off multiple rounds in the direction of the perpetrator without hitting any innocent bystanders would be about as likely as you getting struck by lightning and living to tell about it.

It sure sounds comforting and perhaps that's all that some people want is to feel safer, even if reality says otherwise. Again, I don't have another solution to stopping a crazed shooter who decides to walk into a crowded restaurant and open fire while you are dining there and if you happen to pull off neutralizing the perpetrator without inadvertently gunning down any innocent bystanders when you empty your clip in their direction, I'll personally send you a thank you card.

Thankfully, such random acts of violence are rare. If I felt I would be able to handle such a situation to the level of trained law enforcement, I'd start carrying a gun right away. But I know that for myself and most citizens do not have the where-with-all to take the right action without extensive training. That takes a lot of preparation, which goes back to the idea of self-defense training. You think it requires too much training to be able to defend yourself without a weapon, and that's not honest when comparing to training for situations as above.

I'm not going to belabor this any further. You have the right to carry a concealed gun. You have the right to defend yourself with a gun. Just don't pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense....or go on pretending, and the truth be damned.

You really sound like a chicken little here, no offense intended. I use the term in the sense that you throw up your hands or wave the white flag of defeat regarding self defense with a firearm. Since you feel you can't handle a situation to the level of trained LE (which isn't necessary) and your fear of "gunning down any innocent bystanders" then you've decided that using a gun is not the best line of self defense for you or anyone else.

What say you is the best line of self defense? I really want to know the answer. You say, "You have the right to defend yourself with a gun" but you really don't believe in that right, your past & present rhetoric tells a very different tale. From your many past/present posts on the topic -- I'm willing to state that you'd vote to get rid of the 2A if such a vote was possible.

What I gleam from this post and others from you is your total lack of faith in the individual and the individual's right to decide what is best. You don't believe in YOU or the individual, therefore the rest of us gun owners that would in a New York minute put a couple of rounds in a bad guy's @ss in defense of self, family or others -- somehow we pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense.

[Rattlehead 69]

I'm not going to belabor this any further. You have the right to carry a concealed gun. You have the right to defend yourself with a gun. Just don't pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense....or go on pretending, and the truth be damned.

It depends entirely on who we're talking about - for some folks, especially those who didn't just grab a 45-70 off the wall yesterday, a firearm may well be their best line of defense. Some people shouldn't even consider it. But there are many who can much more effectively defend themselves (and loved ones) with a firearm than with a sharp stick.

[xebec 195]

The chance that you won't be caught by surprise, by a crazed shooter in an crowded establishment, that you could legally bring your weapon into that establishment, and that you would be able to fire off multiple rounds in the direction of the perpetrator without hitting any innocent bystanders would be about as likely as you getting struck by lightning and living to tell about it.

You talk a lot about honesty on this thread. How honest is the above statement? You have amply demonstrated that you have zero experience in these matters- if you did, you would certainly have brought this forward in light of my multiple requests on this thread that you enlighten us about your qualifications to address to effectiveness of self-defense with a firearm. Have you run active shooter scenarios using force on force training methodology? Many people professionally involved in firearm training have.....both civilians and police. Their assessment of the situation is quite at odds with yours. Whose opinion should be trusted? Yours?

It sure sounds comforting and perhaps that's all that some people want is to feel safer, even if reality says otherwise. Again, I don't have another solution to stopping a crazed shooter who decides to walk into a crowded restaurant and open fire while you are dining there and if you happen to pull off neutralizing the perpetrator without inadvertently gunning down any innocent bystanders when you empty your clip in their direction, I'll personally send you a thank you card.

What reality? I see nothing here but your imagination. No need to send any "thank you cards"... there are people out there dealing with reality every day, and they don't need any laurels from you are any other unarmed 911 dependent to know they are in the right. They are doing what is in their power to make their world a little safer, while you ignorantly disparage them on the internet. With your current attitude, the most you will ever accomplish is calling in the cleanup crew with your cell phone. Here are a few examples of CHLs ending a killing spree. None seem to follow your misguided imaginings:

Tyler Texas

Colorado Springs

Appalachian School of Law

Salt Lake City

Thankfully, such random acts of violence are rare. If I felt I would be able to handle such a situation to the level of trained law enforcement, I'd start carrying a gun right away. But I know that for myself and most citizens do not have the where-with-all to take the right action without extensive training. That takes a lot of preparation, which goes back to the idea of self-defense training. You think it requires too much training to be able to defend yourself without a weapon, and that's not honest when comparing to training for situations as above.

What do you know about LE firearm training? Are you involved in this? Do you know how many hours of quarterly training the average LE officer is responsible for? You are the one who is being dishonest here. The amount of training that a person would need to use unarmed defense techniques to have any reasonable chance of fighting off a physically superior attacker (or even multiple attackers) is orders of magnitude greater than the training required to safely use a firearm in self defense. There are no guarantees when you get into a life and death struggle. But you are the one pretending here..... pretending knowledge and experience you clearly don't command.

I'm not going to belabor this any further. You have the right to carry a concealed gun. You have the right to defend yourself with a gun. Just don't pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense....or go on pretending, and the truth be damned.

Yes, that's probably best. Don't belabor this any longer- you don't know what you are talking about. The pretending is all your own. Oh.....btw- stop pretending that you support concealed carry and the 2nd Amendment as well. It defies common sense that you would, after demonstrating on multiple threads that you believe that "civilians" arming themselves is an ineffective and dangerous practice, as well as a public safety hazard.

Edited May 6, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

[/color]

I posted statistical data that supports that claim, but it looks like you're just too ideologically blind to accept the truth. I have no agenda here - I am not advocating banning of guns and I support conceal carry laws. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that if you bring a gun into your home, you've increased the risk of harm to yourself or family. You've conceded that some people will misuse firearms and that isn't just limited to lawless criminals, but to suicides, domestic violence, irresponsibility, etc. Your statistical chances of having your life endangered by some crazed person who decides to make you his target is far less likely than one of your family members or yourself being injured by your own gun.

How do you reach this conclusion fancypants? I'm ideologically blind, and you are the one who used a gun-control website for your "statistics?"

As to to your second statement. Show me.......

There were over 5 million violent crimes in the US in 2007, for example. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv07.pdf

There were just over 123,000 deaths in the same year from all unintentional injuries (not just guns, but all injuries!) http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=6k8FUqMbM52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=.&age2=.&agetext=AllAges&category=ALL&_debug=0

Progressive math?

[james&olya 1,121]

You really sound like a chicken little here, no offense intended. I use the term in the sense that you throw up your hands or wave the white flag of defeat regarding self defense with a firearm. Since you feel you can't handle a situation to the level of trained LE (which isn't necessary) and your fear of "gunning down any innocent bystanders" then you've decided that using a gun is not the best line of self defense for you or anyone else.

What say you is the best line of self defense? I really want to know the answer. You say, "You have the right to defend yourself with a gun" but you really don't believe in that right, your past & present rhetoric tells a very different tale. From your many past/present posts on the topic -- I'm willing to state that you'd vote to get rid of the 2A if such a vote was possible.

What I gleam from this post and others from you is your total lack of faith in the individual and the individual's right to decide what is best. You don't believe in YOU or the individual, therefore the rest of us gun owners that would in a New York minute put a couple of rounds in a bad guy's @ss in defense of self, family or others -- somehow we pretend that owning a gun is the best line of self-defense.[/color]

Having a 'right' to do something does not necessarily make it the RIGHT thing to do!

[Leatherneck 693]

Having a 'right' to do something does not necessarily make it the RIGHT thing to do!

We're talking self defense here, so even in a life, death or grave bodily injury situation -- you have every right to do Nothing, if you determine that as "the RIGHT thing to do!" Whereas others wish to retain to the right to do Something!