nice week for mass gun violence

[Jack Flash]

I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

You're seriously confused about that?

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

You're seriously confused about that?

Yes, I do not know how this would be judged. No need to be a dick.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

Some of this can be blamed on Obama.

If a Republican was in office, the economy could very well be in better shape. And 2nd Amendment aficionados wouldn't be up in arms about an imminent gun grab.

And now we know for a fact that one of these incidents was precipitated by the shooter's fear of 2nd Amendment rights being curtailed; I considered Obama partially responsible for that tragedy, for creating a climate of fear of the demise of the Bill of Rights.

Logic fail is fail.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

A situation like that would come down to witness testimony and other evidence that investigators and prosecutors would use to determine exactly what happened.

But, if Person B admits that he was robbing Person A at the time, or the evidence proves that, then no, it would NOT be considered self-defense for B to shoot A... it would be murder.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Corn
I think the solution to this problem is to ban death.

Actually, I believe that life is the leading cause of death in the world... thus, banning life itself would be much more effective!

Reminds me of a scene from "The Kentucky Fried Movie". A guy trying to sell you a service that allows you to lug around your loved ones corpse. In the beginning of the skit he says "Death is the leading cause of Death in America"

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

You're seriously confused about that?

Yes, I do not know how this would be judged. No need to be a dick.

Palehorse answered your question. Also, the legality of the weapon doesn't matter in this case.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

A situation like that would come down to witness testimony and other evidence that investigators and prosecutors would use to determine exactly what happened.

But, if Person B admits that he was robbing Person A at the time, or the evidence proves that, then no, it would NOT be considered self-defense for B to shoot A... it would be murder.

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

If a gun is used in the crime there really isnt a distinction. Even if the guy by some miracle didnt use his gun to rob you. Just having the gun would enact a harsher penalty and treat him like he did rob you with a gun.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

If a gun is used in the crime there really isnt a distinction. Even if the guy by some miracle didnt use his gun to rob you. Just having the gun would enact a harsher penalty and treat him like he did rob you with a gun.

Another question, and forgive me if this sounds ridiculous.

Can one legally claim self-defense against the police. I recall there was a person killed holding a Playstation controller due to police mistaking it for a weapon. If his roommate had seen this happen and pulled his gun and shot down the officer would that be considered self-defense?

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

SO those Cops didn't have guns? And of course those children didn't have guns to protect themselves from their father but yeah, if those old folks in the nursing home would have been packing the body cout definitely would have been less:roll:

Do you have any evidence that gun control would reduce the number of people that will die from violent acts? I would like to reduce the number of deaths, but I have found no evidence to support this case. I do care about the people who died, and yes, maybe gun control could have saved these lives, but if it comes at the cost of even more people killed in other circumstances, then we have made no real gains. I want to see some evidence that gun control can save lives, and what I mean is: proof that after some country/state/city instituted a form of gun control that they say a drop in murder/violent crimes.

Please, if you have some evidence that we can institute some form of gun control to achieve these outcomes, I would love to see it.

I used to believe that the 2nd amendment was a right we paid for in blood, and I had a serious moral qualm about that. It put two things I hold dear, personal freedom, and personal security at odds with each other. I believed in gun rights, but believed we needed better control. However, as I learned more that view changed. The vast majority of what I have seen, finds no decrease in crime with increased gun control. Again, if you have any proof of the opposite please present it. IF we could find some form of gun control that actually helps make people safer, then I think even gun nuts would like to hear it.

And please, don't use the "common sense" argument so many people break out. If "common sense" is not good enough to disprove man-made global warming, or "common sense" is not a good argument to support teaching ID in schools then "common sense" is not a good enough argument to be used to take away our rights.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Another question, and forgive me if this sounds ridiculous.

Can one legally claim self-defense against the police. I recall there was a person killed holding a Playstation controller due to police mistaking it for a weapon. If his roommate had seen this happen and pulled his gun and shot down the officer would that be considered self-defense?

Yes one can kill a police officer in legitimate self defense. I remember a story a couple years ago about the cops busting down the wrong door on a warrant and somebody shot and killed 2 of them as they came through the front door and lived. And no charges were brought against the home owner since the cops werent legally entering the property. And I believe were in civilian clothes.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

If a gun is used in the crime there really isnt a distinction. Even if the guy by some miracle didnt use his gun to rob you. Just having the gun would enact a harsher penalty and treat him like he did rob you with a gun.

Another question, and forgive me if this sounds ridiculous.

Can one legally claim self-defense against the police. I recall there was a person killed holding a Playstation controller due to police mistaking it for a weapon. If his roommate had seen this happen and pulled his gun and shot down the officer would that be considered self-defense?

Yes, just a few days ago a man was aquitted in a shootout with the police. The recordings of the incident proved that the police shot first, and did not identify himself properly. The man is innocent on all charges. If you would like a news link it will need to wait until later today, but I can provide it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: NeoV
My point is - and I'll say for the umpteenth time on here - I'm not calling for a ban on guns in this country - however, the lack of concern for gun-related violence in this country is just staggering to me.

What more do you want then? It's illegal to commit murder. The shooter in PA had a dishonorable discharge, which means it was illegal for him to own any firearms at all. For all intents and purposes, guns were banned as far as he was concerned. Yet he manged to get some.

The answer is not more restrictions on who can own firearms and it's not more restrictions on what type of firearms a person can own. The answer is enforcement of the laws we already have. I can get behind reasonable efforts to ensure that only responsible people can own firearms, but blanket bans on type or amount are just not going to solve things.

ZV

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

If a gun is used in the crime there really isnt a distinction. Even if the guy by some miracle didnt use his gun to rob you. Just having the gun would enact a harsher penalty and treat him like he did rob you with a gun.

Another question, and forgive me if this sounds ridiculous.

Can one legally claim self-defense against the police. I recall there was a person killed holding a Playstation controller due to police mistaking it for a weapon. If his roommate had seen this happen and pulled his gun and shot down the officer would that be considered self-defense?

Yes, just a few days ago a man was aquitted in a shootout with the police. The recordings of the incident proved that the police shot first, and did not identify himself properly. The man is innocent on all charges. If you would like a news link it will need to wait until later today, but I can provide it.

Sure I'd be interested to read it. Please don't think I'm trying to make any argument either way. Just asking questions on subjects I don't know much about.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: NeoV
My point is - and I'll say for the umpteenth time on here - I'm not calling for a ban on guns in this country - however, the lack of concern for gun-related violence in this country is just staggering to me.

What more do you want then? It's illegal to commit murder. The shooter in PA had a dishonorable discharge, which means it was illegal for him to own any firearms at all. For all intents and purposes, guns were banned as far as he was concerned. Yet he manged to get some.

The answer is not more restrictions on who can own firearms and it's not more restrictions on what type of firearms a person can own. The answer is enforcement of the laws we already have. I can get behind reasonable efforts to ensure that only responsible people can own firearms, but blanket bans on type or amount are just not going to solve things.

ZV

bo has a item "apologize for america's gun violence" on his to do list, but he hasn't got to it yet...

this topic, as presented, is lame... the op wants some ethereal lamentations about people getting killed just because it was done with guns? kind of heartless to those beaten, strangled, stabbed, etc... to death...

this is very simply a ban guns post...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

The cops in CA and PA all had guns, and were all well trained in the operation of a firearm. They're all just as dead as the unarmed people in the nursing home.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hacp
If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

SO those Cops didn't have guns? And of course those children didn't have guns to protect themselves from their father but yeah, if those old folks in the nursing home would have been packing the body cout definitely would have been less:roll:

Do you have any evidence that gun control would reduce the number of people that will die from violent acts? I would like to reduce the number of deaths, but I have found no evidence to support this case. I do care about the people who died, and yes, maybe gun control could have saved these lives, but if it comes at the cost of even more people killed in other circumstances, then we have made no real gains. I want to see some evidence that gun control can save lives, and what I mean is: proof that after some country/state/city instituted a form of gun control that they say a drop in murder/violent crimes.

Please, if you have some evidence that we can institute some form of gun control to achieve these outcomes, I would love to see it.

I used to believe that the 2nd amendment was a right we paid for in blood, and I had a serious moral qualm about that. It put two things I hold dear, personal freedom, and personal security at odds with each other. I believed in gun rights, but believed we needed better control. However, as I learned more that view changed. The vast majority of what I have seen, finds no decrease in crime with increased gun control. Again, if you have any proof of the opposite please present it. IF we could find some form of gun control that actually helps make people safer, then I think even gun nuts would like to hear it.

And please, don't use the "common sense" argument so many people break out. If "common sense" is not good enough to disprove man-made global warming, or "common sense" is not a good argument to support teaching ID in schools then "common sense" is not a good enough argument to be used to take away our rights.

Well first of all I was referring HACP's ridiculous argument that if those who were killed would have been packing most of them wouldn't have died. We're talking about children and people in Nursing Homes plus three of those killed were police officers who had guns.

Secondly I believe we should enforce the laws we have now before we start making new laws. That's the gun control I want to see enacted, the ones already in place.

Finally there are so many guns out in circulation that it would be impossible to try and outlaw them keeping in mind that so many Americans are in love with their guns or the idea of being able to own guns that in doing so we'd make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens. Hell you think our prisons are over crowded with people due to the stupid prohibition of some drugs,just imagine if we made possession of guns illegal.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I have been confused about something for a while. Here's the question:

Person A and person B are both legal gun owners.

Person A is carrying a legal concealed weapon. Person B robs person A.

Person A draws his weapon on person B, misses and person B shoots and kills him.

Does the law view person B as acting in self-defense?

You're seriously confused about that?

Yes, I do not know how this would be judged. No need to be a dick.

Obviously person B has every right to defend himself during the commission of his chosen crime/s.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

The cops in CA and PA all had guns, and were all well trained in the operation of a firearm. They're all just as dead as the unarmed people in the nursing home.

Didn't a cop shoot the guy at the nursing home? Good thing he was there, huh!!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

The cops in CA and PA all had guns, and were all well trained in the operation of a firearm. They're all just as dead as the unarmed people in the nursing home.

How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if the cops had not had guns?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well first of all I was referring HACP's ridiculous argument that if those who were killed would have been packing most of them wouldn't have died. We're talking about children and people in Nursing Homes plus three of those killed were police officers who had guns.

Secondly I believe we should enforce the laws we have now before we start making new laws. That's the gun control I want to see enacted, the ones already in place.

Finally there are so many guns out in circulation that it would be impossible to try and outlaw them keeping in mind that so many Americans are in love with their guns or the idea of being able to own guns that in doing so we'd make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens. Hell you think our prisons are over crowded with people due to the stupid prohibition of some drugs,just imagine if we made possession of guns illegal.

:thumbsup:

As a gun owner, I've never understood the people who seem to think that concealed carry is a panacea. There are situations in which it can save lives, that much I do believe. But there are definitely cases where having a firearm will not do a person any good. If you're taken completely by surprise, having a firearm isn't going to help. I've always found it ironic how concealed carry advocates can talk about how foolish it is to believe that a "good neighborhood" will keep a person safe and still manage to believe that carrying will always keep a person safe.

I do believe that I am safer with a sidearm than without, but I certainly don't think it will save me in every situation.

ZV

 

[NeoV]

and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

Do you feel the need for new laws after every drunk-driving death? What about death from a non-DUI vehicle accident?

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

Do you feel the need for new laws after every drunk-driving death? What about death from a non-DUI vehicle accident?

and they'd better ban hs football, look at all the kids injured there...

let's make a law that neov spends all of his free time at a counseling center so that these brainfucked individuals have someone to talk to and another law that confiscates all of his earnings to pay for unemployment compensation for the rest...