Well, that’s just a bridge too far 
You mean enumerated constitutional right?
There is a much better argument for gun rights than abortion rights, how do you reconcile that without saying that we should just make you king?
Its not federal law but there are plenty of states that extend full faith and credit to drivers that would not be eligible drivers in their state (drunk driving convictions, age, color blindness). My understanding is that one of the reasons for DOMA was that congress was concerned that the courts would apply full faith and credit to the gay marriages. The full faith and credit clause creates these disparities all the time.
The game isn’t rigged, there is a difference of opinion and frankly this is an area where we have seen fairly large shifts in opinion on this board. This board is decidedly less in favor of some types of gun control after we debated the issues. I don’t think Assault Weapons Bans are widely supported on this board anymore (perhaps one day the gun control folks will come up with one that makes sense but no one should hold their breath).
Victim turns tables on suspect in West Oak Lane, Philadelphia Police say
To recap. Had a gun to the back of his head and managed to disengage and fire on the suspect.
Clearly and obviously not “too late to access yours.”
I wasnt trying to save a TV,:rolleyes: I was trying to save a woman. See the difference?
The guy had a gun to the back of his head, and then ducked down behind a car.
Something is missing in between those two times.
Could have been any number of things: bad guy got distracted, or froze up in a stressful situation, or didn’t really want to shoot someone, or tried to shoot him and gun misfired, etc. Does it really matter?
Are you trying to pick up the torch and carry on Crane’s silly crusade?
It does matter. I am being told that there is a way to use my gun to protect myself from a person with a gun to my head.
Yet, no one has ever actually said what that method is. From this article, it appears that if you have a gun to your head, you duck down behind a car. I do not see how that works.
Can you tell me, if I have a gun to my head, and I am carrying a gun, what actions I should take to prevent myself from being shot?
I have stated my position in this thread a few times, thank you. The very poorly veiled insult is not appreciated.
Are you going to tell me how to use a gun to protect myself against someone who has a gun to my head?
No. I didn’t make that claim, so you’d have to take it up with the person that did. Guns are decent defensive weapons. They’re not a magic talisman that solves any and all possible permutations of threats of violence to oneself or one’s family.
We can hypothesize plausible scenarios all day but all the data we have at the moment is what’s in the news article. If you’re serious about wanting the details, file a FOIA request with the relevant PD.
Or just admit you’re nitpicking because you’ve got nothing else to offer.
The whole idea that concealed weapons can be used when the bad guys has already drawn his gun is so absurd, and easily disprovable, that I think we’re probably being trolled.
In case we’re not, here are several videos:
https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/robbery-thwarted-when-victim-pulls-out-concealed-gun/No, the standard is, and always has been, a reasonable fear for loss of life or serious bodily harm. The TV analogy is just silly and would result in a felony gun charge.
That has never been the case. Not sure where you got that idea from. It’s always been perfectly legal to take action to defend a 3rd party from loss of life or serious bodily harm. 3rd party can be anyone from your child to a total stranger and anyone in between.
Missouri, and probably other states, allow use of deadly force to prevent a felony. An example given during a training class was using deadly force to stop arson of an occupied building.
Stealing a TV isn’t a felony I don’t believe.
GaryM
A good example. In that case there is a real fear for loss of life. I suspect that most states would be ok with deadly force in that case.
I don’t know for sure, but I doubt Missouri would be ok with the use of deadly force to prevent a non-violent felony. Credit card fraud, identity theft, embezzlement… etc.
Probably not unless force was used or threatened. Even if the theif is unarmed, if he has his hand in his pocket to imply he’s armed, it may be considered armed robbery.
GaryM
Again, I agree.
My point was simply that non-violent crimes don’t usually rise to the level of deadly force. And therefore lethal force is not justifiable in most cases.
Of course, each incident must be evaluated on it’s own merits.
No, but you claimed that it did not matter how the events played out. That the only thing that mattered was that, after having a gun to his head, he managed to turn the tables.
I do think it matters as to what happened between those two narrative events. Everyway that I see that playing out ends with a bullet in the head.
Hey, I agree entirely with that! I do not think that it is the side that is interested in ensuring that those who carry guns in public are responsible and trained enough to be able to do so safely that has disillusions as to the safety that carrying a gun in public gives you. IMHO, it is those who say that more guns will solve gun violence, and those who say “good guy with a gun” with a straight face that have that particular fantasy.
Not my nit to pick. You are the one who pulled out an anecdote to refute the generalized point that a gun does not do you much good if the other person already has the drop on you. If you cannot demonstrate a method that has at least a reasonable chance against someone that has a gun to your head, then it is you that is picking nits by pointing out anecdotes.
I was in complete agreement with you here.
But then I realized that you mistated your position, and it was I that you were accusing of being a troll.
In the first video, we have a guy wait until the attacker with a gun (the other guy appears to have a bat or something,m it was unclear, but he wasn’t holding it like a gun) has his back turned, pull out his gun, and start firing at, but missing the perp. There was another person behind the counter he could have hit, and his second shot goes right by another bystander. In this case, he was more dangerous than the robbers. He then continues firing at them, with shots going out the door to who knows where (he obviously didn’t). It was more luck than skill that the elderly man with a gun did not hurt a bystander with his actions.
In the second video, we have a gun pulled on 3 people behind a counter. The person furthest from the attacker, and shielded by their bodies, pulls a gun and starts shooting at the attacker. The attacker shoots back before he goes down. He put his co-worker’s lives at risk there. Getting co-workers killed to protect money is not what I would consider a noble act.
Third video, I will give that that man successfully defended himself against the other guy with a gun. But I will note that he did so not by pulling his own gun and firing, but instead by attacking the other person’s gun.
So, really, out of those three examples, I really see the first two as examples of why it is a bad idea for you to take matters into your own hands like that. That’s when you get stories like this.
And while people are waiting around, carrying their guns 24/7, waiting for an incident like this to respond to, that’s when you get any in a long long list of accidental shootings.
Now, as HD has accused me of begin silly or something like that, I will repeat my position, though I already laid it out earlier in this thread, as it seems as though anything between the extremes of gun worship and pure hoplophobia just doesn’t seem to make any sense.
I don’t care what guns you keep in your home. I see it as an increased danger to you and yours, but that is a choice that you can make for your and yours. I don’t care what guns you hunt with, I really don’t care what guns you take to the range.
I do care a bit about what guns are carried in public, or rather, I care about the people who carry them. I am sure that most of the posters on this board and in this thread are responsible gun owners that would never cuase an accident or an incident where an innocent bystander gets killed. But you all are not the entirety of the spectrum of gun owners. There are many who own guns that are actually pretty dumb and irresponsible, and there is very little barrier to keep them from carrying around their flashy loud toys.
Ohio has an 8 hour class in order to carry concealed. I would really like to see that increased substantially. I have friends who have gone through it, and thought it was a joke. But at least it is something. This bill means that even that 8 hour joke of training is more than other people carrying concealed may have.
So, to sum up, my position is that if you are going to carry in public, then you should have substantial training not just on shooting accuracy, but threat assessments, situational awareness, collateral damage mitigation, and courtesy(as a far from completely exhaustive list). As it was, each state could determine its own qualifications for obtaining a CCW, and ensure that those carrying within its borders complied to at least some basic minimum competence. With this bill, that is no longer the case, and a state does not have the ability to determine who and in what manner people carry lethal weapons in public areas.
If you all wanna call that a silly crusade and accuse me of being a troll for holding what is, IMHO, an entirely reasonable position, that’s all you.
The part I called a “silly crusade” was Crane’s attempt to argue that CCWs can’t be used effectively for self-defense:
He is wrong. He has been proven wrong in this thread. To the extent you agree with his position here, you are wrong as well.
If your position is not an attempt to support Crane’s argument (because presumably you see how silly it is as well), but that we need more thorough training for CCW permit holders, I wouldn’t characterize that position as “silly”, but I would point out that it’s incumbent upon you to provide evidence that supports this position. Do you have any scientific evidence that “substantial training not just on shooting accuracy, but threat assessments, situational awareness, collateral damage mitigation, and courtesy(as a far from completely exhaustive list)” offer some quantifiable public benefit to outweigh the cost?
I do not see how he has been proven wrong on this matter in this thread or any other.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, then they can pull the trigger faster than you can pull out your gun and use it defensively. To argue against that is pretty silly. I can move a little piece of metal a fraction of an inch faster than you can use your whole arm to reach to your holster, unsnap the safety strap, draw your weapon, take it out of ‘safe’, chamber a round, check your backstop for bystanders, and finally fire.
If you get the upper hand in this, that means that they were either unwilling to kill, or they were too incompetent to, either way, your life wasn’t actually in danger, only your property. If your assailant is willing to kill you, they will shoot you as soon as you reach for your gun, or really make any sort of suspicious move, just like the cops do. If they were willing to kill you, but didn’t actually want to, then you have forced them into a position of killing you.
I don’t see how trying to pull a gun on someone who is pointing a gun at you actually increases your safety. If nothing else, you are generally going to be better off going for their gun, like the guy in the last video did.
If a person is desperate enough to turn to muggings and robbery, and they know that many of their peers have had the tables turned on them, they are going to be twitchy at best, and more likely to shoot you first, then take your money (and gun). I doubt you can find even the slightest bit of anecdotal evidence of a gun being useful for defense after you are already dead.
That there are some instances where they hesitate or something goes wrong on their end is anecdotal, it is not a valid strategy to rely on their hesitation or gun jamming.
Once again, you seem to be incapable of understanding any position between gun worship and hoplophobia. What evidence are you looking for, exactly? That accidents happen in public by people that are not responsible enough to carry a gun in public? I could point out all the accidents that happen in the home by people too irresponsible to own a gun in the home either, but at least they are only a threat to those who enter their home, except when they have a CCW.
In any case, I don’t feel that I need to spend all that much time defending the idea that more training with deadly weapons will make their presence safer both to the holder and to the public, as not only is that quite obvious, it is also a debate that used to be able to happen in every state, and allow every state to make a decision as to what public benefit outweighs the cost. This bill does not consider the costs, it removes the state’s ability to consider the costs.
Utah is free to have relaxed restrictions if that is what its people and elected representatives want, and what they have decided works best for their cost/benefit analysis. But another state is not free to impose stricter limitations based upon their preponderance of the data.
This bill eliminates the state’s ability to make their own decisions on the matter. As it is a change that is being imposed by those on your side, it is actually incumbent upon you to show that taking away the state’s ability to control what sorts of lethal weapons are allowed to be carried in what manner in the public sphere offers some quantifiable public benefit to outweigh the cost.
Or they didnt have a gun. They had a knife etc. You can easily defend yoursefl vs a man with a knife at some distance, just as my first ancedote mentioned, with the :
When I had a CCW, and walking with a date, two homeless guys came out a alley, holding a pipe and a board with some nails. They said “Give us some money, man”. I showed them my gun and said “I dont thnk so”- their eyes got wide, and they said “No problem man” and went back into the alley. *
Or the second instance to prevent somone esle frome getting hurt:
*
Another time we heard a scream and a woman was being dragged by her purse into a alley by a big tough looking dude. The other guy with me yelled at him, and I brought out my gun. He let go of the purse and ran. *
Yes, if a guy has the drop on you, you are in trouble. But it is still possible to defend yourself, altho certainly more difficult.
Ahh, so you ARE trying to carry on Crane’s silly crusade. Suffice it to say if you “do not see how he has been proven wrong” you have either not read this thread or not understood it.