Gun Control Roll Call

[minionofmidas]

I'm in favor of mandatory background checks...and a record of "being stolen" guns must mean you can't buy any new ones any more. I'm in favor of having all guns registered. I'm opposed to letting persons under 16 anywhere near guns.
I'm opposed to all sorts of arbitrary distinctions between firearms. For instance, I'm opposed to the assault weapons ban. I'm opposed to mandatory waiting periods. I'm very much opposed to silly federal laws that make carrying a weapon while committing a crime punishable harder than the actual crime.
I have no opinion on concealed weapons bans.

Now place me.

[minionofmidas]

banning possession by felons.

Ah yes, another point I strongly oppose, except in case of actual gun crime.

[minionofmidas]

banning possession by felons.

Ah yes, another point I strongly oppose, except in case of actual gun crime.

You're intentionally being difficult to pigeonhole, aren't you?

No.

[minionofmidas]

I was going to say something, but after reading the posts on this thread I'm afraid that you will find my house and shoot me for it

I might find your house, but I don't own any guns and would therefore hug you to death instead.

[minionofmidas]

Leave the issue up to the states/localities.  No reason Montana and Maryland need the same gun regulations.

True, obviously.

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

[minionofmidas]

Are you sure the primary use of guns is not to shoot yourself in the foot?

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

[minionofmidas]

I agree that the Baptist Church contributes to a decline in standards and society

It used to be a standard charge when they first appeared. Mostly because the habit of adult baptism afforded people a good looksee at women's underwear. (From a contemporary source: "The nakedness of one of the women was seen to above her knees")

[minionofmidas]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

Second one or both?

[minionofmidas]

New Deadly Force Law Takes Effect In Florida Oct. 1

A new anti-crime law that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee will take effect in Florida on Oct. 1.

The law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in April, reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force. In signing the bill, Bush said it "defies common sense" to force people to retreat when they're in a life-threatening situation.

The new law expands the long-existing "castle doctrine", a common law principle that allows homeowners who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their homes. A person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony".

While the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are in favor of the new measure called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, not everyone supports it. While critics don't oppose allowing people to protect themselves in their homes, they say that some residents may shoot first and ask questions later, creating a "Wild West" atmosphere.

The Florida courts have held that homeowners have the right to defend themselves in their homes as in many states and Florida jurists have held that employees can defend themselves in their workplace as can drivers who are attacked in their vehicles but that outside those places, potential victims had to first attempt to escape before using deadly force. That provision has now been removed under the new law if the person has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Gun control advocates are planning a campaign to tell travelers to Florida about the new law. The Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out fliers at the Miami International Airport and will use newspaper ads, billboards and the Internet to advise travelers to Florida to "not argue unnecessarily with local people". As of Wednesday, when the phrase "Florida Vacation" is typed into some search engines, a link to www.shootfirstlaw.org appears.

The bill had been unanimously passed by the Florida Senate 39-0 and by a vote of 94-20 by the House. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html 9-28-05
 
© 2005 North Country Gazette

Just the second one then.
Yeah, the main problem with these sort of laws is indeed the sort of abuses they may invite, like that South African security guard who sadistically shot dozens of innocent Black guys in the back (at night, on the job) in the 80s and early 90s (I forgot the name; a dutch name though) and under South Africa's then self defense laws never was investigated.
As long as every case still gets investigated I can *live* with this sort of legislation, though it's not what I'd  prefer.

[minionofmidas]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

[minionofmidas]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

[minionofmidas]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

Some of them.

[minionofmidas]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

Some of them.

meh.
I'd start with that horrible piece, the Firearm Owners "Protection" Act of 1986.

I forget what it's called, but I'd start with the one that makes it a federal crime to carry a weapon while committing another crime. That is so stupid.

[minionofmidas]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

Actually, no. Thats why police are told to shoot a violent suspect dead instead of wounding him.

They aren't in civilized countries. (A violent suspect with a cocked gun in hand is a different matter again.)

[minionofmidas]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

1. I used plenty of logic and reason

No, you used lots of logical fallacies and not much else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. You will have to arrive at a judgement from what you see, and if you really make an honest mistake you'd likely be found not guilty. However, if you jump to the conclusion that here's an opportunity to make your bones, you are of course a murderer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interestingly, when you commit a crime, I attack you to prevent that crime, and you kill me in self-defense, you're considered a murderer under both US and German laws even if you didn't bring the lethal weapon with you but used something you found at the scene of the crime - a provision I thoroughly disagree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A second gun has mysteriously appeared out of thin air?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, because I do value life - and that means every life - and you apparently don't. And don't go on dissing pond scum.