DescentBB

Just read an interesting article about the new \"shoot first\" laws in 15 U.S. federal states.

A man shot and killed a guy who had parked in front of his house when that guy was just driving away. At court he explained that a youth gang had attacked him in his house a few hours earlier and that he had thought the guy had belonged to that gang.

Ok. So now someone attacked me, and a few hours later I see someone driving his car away from where he had parked it in front of my house, so I run to get my gun (I have to hurry, or he will be gone), and shoot him. \"I believed\" he had been one of the attackers earlier. \"I believed\" it.

Another case: A taxi driver shot and killed a guest he had carried. At court he explained the guy had threatened him with a knife. There hadn't been a knife around the corpse though. I bet he quickly threw it away when the coroner was distracted for a second. The taxi driver went free.

A retired policeman shot an unarmed neighbour in belly and, after he had gone down, in the chest after an argument.

\"I 'believed' that guy was dangerous, so I shot him.\"

\"He looked so strangely at my child, so I believed he wanted to kidnap it next day, so I shot him\".

I will never go to the U.S. again. Heck, I park my car in front of some house because let's say my son needs something to drink, and I only have something in the trunk. House owner feels threatened, gets his gun and shoots me because he believed I was planning to assault him. Result: A child w/o father and a wife w/o husband. Ruined for life because you have nothing better to do than to cultivate the deep aggressivity and hatred that seems to spread out more and more in your society.

This law is a law that allows to let hatred free. My neighbour, who upsets me for years now, makes the mistake to ring at my door to ask me something. Great! Heck, wife, get me the gun, quickly, I will teach the bastard not to attack me! Heck, he pressed my door bell, my personal property, he is standing in my garden, the bastard! People in shorts are dangerous! I feel threatened! Shoot shoot kill kill! Hah!

Good bye, America.

How about this?

I am a tourist in Florida. A criminal shoots me to take away my possessions. The police gets him, and he explains I had been threatening him with a knife. Now I do carry a swiss army knife (what a dangerous WMD!). Conclusion: The guy had just exerted his right for \"self defense\".

If I look at the American people, I find my observation confirmed that there is rather a limit to the unverse than to human stupidity.

I know, you gun owners will find 100 excuses and 100 defenses for this law.

Fact is, abuse is to easy, and it allows the 'good citizen' to let the beast in him loose w/o having to fear consequences any more.

Actually, if you are for the right to shoot people who threaten you, may I shoot you? Because I really feel threatened by the dealings of the gun lobby and their mindless minions.

The only reason many people aren't violent are social conventions and laws. Lower the bar, and you will reap more violence by those who had previously been kept back.

Try to argue with me if you want to reap a one-word reply going \"STOOPID!\", because if you really believe there is any valid defense for these laws you must have a damn bored solitaire brain cell orbiting in a much too spacious inside of an otherwise hollow skull.

A link to the article would be helpful.





Not that I want to argue ... or anything ...

I just read an interesting article about a little dude in germany with a funny mustache who tricked the german people into murdering 6 million jews! Amazing, those germans must all be one weird mix of moron and homicidal maniac.
If I ever go to Germany I'll be sure to bring all my pistols so I can shoot first and ask for directions later.

I don't really understand this reply in the context of this thread, but isn't it interesting how this little man with the ugly moustache so magically attracts so many Americans ... today?

I wish I had a time machine so I could help you. I could send you back and you could go and kill many Nazis and finally do something useful with your life.



To those Americans not supporting such laws: Please don't feel insulted. I know that not all Americans support these laws. Sadly it looks like the majority does, though.

Great pic

diedel...it's a waste to bring up these subjects. even though you're not an america citizen, you can see the sheer stupidity of such american laws and why the whole \"right to bear arms\" thing is a joke. sadly though, the gun lobby is too strong.

on a side note, funny thing about Nazi germany. 90% of the people DIDN\"T know what was going on with the Jews. Soldiers didn't even know about the camps and whatnot.

I'm curious as to which states these stories were in. I'd bet my last dollar they were in the bible belt.

I support these laws, Deidel, but I support common sense as well.

Zuruck wrote:on a side note, funny thing about Nazi germany. 90% of the people DIDN"T know what was going on with the Jews. Soldiers didn't even know about the camps and whatnot.

Yea, I imagine they just had the sun in their eyes when they were tossing them into the ovens! Not their fault at all, they were really throwing them toward the hospital but the jew took a bad hop....oops right into that big oven!
Who put that thing there anyway?!?
I guess they probably figured that smell was just some strange ethnic cooking and all the bodies were just the result of natural causes....

Hey while you're at it do you have an excuse for Stalins and Pol Pot's goons cause they got a bum rap too?

What about civil war ? Slaves ? About 100 wars since WW2 ? What have Nazi's (that are almost extinct anyway) to do w/ the topic ?

Grendel wrote:What about civil war ? Slaves ? About 100 wars since WW2 ? What have Nazi's (that are almost extinct anyway) to do w/ the topic ?

What they have to do with the topic is Diedel and I both made stupid assumptions about a whole nation of people based on something we think we know about a relatively small sample of the nation.....

The big difference is I knew my position would be foolish if I believed it, if it weren't offered in total sarcasm. Diedel on the otherhand thinks he's delivered a substantive well thought out scathing commentary on the very moral fiber of america.

The unexpected side show was Zuruck jumping in with the need to minimize the germans contribution to, and culpability for, their attempt to exterminate, literally, millions of people.
I guess he thought if he could just minimalize Germany's responsibility for the holocaust that Diedels ridiculous malformed stereotyping of America would somehow have more credibility!

Yep Will, the 10% that knew happened to be the ones involved. Nobody knew of the final solution plan, the mass extermination of millions of people except those directly involved.

Anything else? Diedel's stereotype isn't wrong when it comes to people like you Will. Sadly enough, people like you voted in a man who was willing to do exactly that..hopefully that will change in a couple of years and we can get rid of people like you

lets not confuse whats on the law books and how justice is applied.

Because a law is on the books does not imply that any actions that law covers are automatically legal, and most of these laws are realtivly young, and haven't had as many specific cases tried for them, though most of cases concerning self-defense and murder would certianly be cited.

So, the speculative examples that diedle cited are exagerrated to the point of farce, and are ones that doomsayers would use.

And really makes me wonder about Diedel.

Those articles musr be based on some very old cases - we have better laws now - you hafta drag there corpse into the house and say you shot them in the house during a burglry.


While I do argree with the right to bear arms, its this non-sence that makes me believe it is time for a change.

http://kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=131795

Yes, it IS time for a change. The people responsible should be taken out and shot. Or Hanged. Or locked in a closet with a wolverine high on PCP.

Zuruck wrote:Diedel's stereotype isn't wrong when it comes to people like you Will. Sadly enough, people like you voted in a man who was willing to do exactly that..hopefully that will change in a couple of years and we can get rid of people like you

Well you would have a point except that everything you said is completely wrong!!
I've never used a gun in an illegal manner and I voted for Michael Badnarik who you probably haven't a clue as to his position on anything!
You just spout off like a stopped up toilet in the basement of a frat house, there's just no end to the crap coming out of you!

Florida is the greatest, aint it?

If it wasnt for the cute girls in bikinis, oranges, and my girlfriend being here, I would of moved out along time ago.

Pretty cool though, I can shoot someone in the head and say \"They were walking towards me, I thought they would of bumped into me, causing a serious head injury!\"

We better kick out Jeb here fast. The school system sucks ass!

Can anyone here explain what the so-called \"shoot first\" laws actually are?

I didn't think so. But hey, they're called \"shoot first\" laws, so they must obviously mean you can shoot whoever you want as long as you have a good excuse, right?

Actually, no. As far as I can tell (from, admittedly, VERY limited reading -- they were mentioned tangentially in something else I was reading) the laws are called \"shoot first\" by their opponents, and \"stand your ground\" by their supporters. What they (seem to) allow is to shoot someone who begins to flee after threatening behavior, rather than having to put your gun away immediately as soon as they start to even remotely pretend to flee. The idea is, if they were a threat, they still qualify as a threat until they're actually *subdued*, not merely putting distance between them and you.

Now, I don't know if the laws are good ideas or not, since I don't know the full details. But the overblown \"OMG I'm afraid of America now\", \"HITLER IS TEH BADNESS!\" type rhetoric isn't going to help me decide.

fliptw wrote:So, the speculative examples that diedle cited are exagerrated to the point of farce, and are ones that doomsayers would use.

And really makes me wonder about Diedel.

Ya think? Put in Diedel in search and take a look at ALL of his threads.

Lothar wrote:Can anyone here explain what the so-called "shoot first" laws actually are?

Actually, yes. I'd like to know what they really are, instead of people's interpretations of them.

Will, Zuruck is correct. Only hardcore SS officers were there to emprison or kill jews. Most german citizens weren't aware of what was really happening. In fact, after the capitulation, the US army forced german citizens to visit the concentration camps, just to make them realise what atrocities their government was getting away with.

Diedel is, I believe, telling something like this: while you may think the right to bear (fire)arms (and use them in some circumstances) is vital, there are socities where there is no right to bear or use (fire)arms, even in threatening situations. Well, these societies are not worse off than yours. People aren't threatened or murdered any more than you are, much to the contrary. I believe Diedel says people in favor of guns are narrow-sighted as far as this topic is concerned. I agree.

jeez, not more \"guns are bad\" BS.

get it right.

There are bad people out there who will hurt you to get what they want.If they don't have guns they will use another tool.Are y'all gonna jump on the \"ban steak knives\" bandwagon. if they become the tool of choice for Bad people?

Shoot first laws are their to help people who are protecting their property and family.

I'm sure that there is some fine tuning needing to be done to the laws, but that doesn't make them bad laws.

I'm a little concerned about the knee jerk reaction to Diedels post, bringing up hitler to defend our right to bear arms is out of context for sure.

Not that Ive ever agreed with his posts mind you, It's just that knee jerk reactions like that just give him more fuel for his \"hate America\" campaign.

and tri, yes we are narrow sighted on the subject.
Why? because we enjoy our guns. we use them for several reasons. home protection is just one of the reasons we own them and are not willing to give them up.
My family has been involved with Shooting sports since I can remember. My step father goes to Rifle matches monthly because he enjoys it!
Our family goes hunting every year. why? because we enjoy it!
Banning guns because some people may use them for crime is about as reasonable as banning computers because pedophiles use them to prey on our children.

Hattrick wrote:Banning guns because some people may use them for crime is about as reasonable as banning computers because pedophiles use them to prey on our children.

I wouldn't be surprised if this were the next target for the fear-fueled puritan lawmakers. If it were for savage cavemen like us we'd be all clothed in bubble wrap wearing air purifiers over our mouths and using dull utensils to eat our food.

Tricord wrote:Will, Zuruck is correct. Only hardcore SS officers were there to emprison or kill jews. Most german citizens weren't aware of what was really happening. In fact, after the capitulation, the US army forced german citizens to visit the concentration camps, just to make them realise what atrocities their government was getting away with.

Diedel is, I believe, telling something like this: while you may think the right to bear (fire)arms (and use them in some circumstances) is vital, there are socities where there is no right to bear or use (fire)arms, even in threatening situations. Well, these societies are not worse off than yours. People aren't threatened or murdered any more than you are, much to the contrary. I believe Diedel says people in favor of guns are narrow-sighted as far as this topic is concerned. I agree.

I read your post and re-read Diedels. You give him too much credit because when I read this:

you have nothing better to do than to cultivate the deep aggressivity and hatred that seems to spread out more and more in your society.

and this:

If I look at the American people, I find my observation confirmed that there is rather a limit to the unverse than to human stupidity.

and this

Try to argue with me if you want to reap a one-word reply going "STOOPID!", because if you really believe there is any valid defense for these laws you must have a damn bored solitaire brain cell orbiting in a much too spacious inside of an otherwise hollow skull.

I just don't feel he makes the same observation you do and certainly doesn't seem to be willing to discuss anything....

He took some bizarre isolated instances of which I seriously doubt we got the whole story..but regardless, he indicts all americans and I merely used his logic to show him how stupid he was being.
Yes of course ALL germans aren't responsible...just like ALL americans don't fit Diedels stereotype!
The difference is I know that and he doesn't seem to.

As I said, you give him too much credit and I remember his past posts and so I know better than to assume he is being objective or even slightly intelligent.

Shoot first is a extension of the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine allows you the right to shoot someone in your home whom you percieve as a threat. Prior to \"Shoot First\" if you were out of your home and were threatened, you did not have the right to shoot \"first\" to protect yourself. Thus a carjacker approaches you with a knife and tells you to get out of the car, prior to Shoot First you would have to give the guy your car.
Shooting him would land you in jail. Now, if you are armed you can pull your firearm and shoot the jacker. In short you no longer have to meekly stand aside when threatened. OTOH the examples Diedel gave would (or should) land you in the lock-up.

Oh and Zuruck, I see you are still incompetent to present a coherent argument.

I likeand they have a 9mm version. I wonder if Barry would approve of the manufacturer?

The 9mm round is a joke unless it is in a machine gun or a semi auto. It takes 3 or 4 rounds to knock someone down, where as a 45 - one shot and he is down. The woosy Air Force is who got rid of the real weapons and replaced the 45 with rapid fire 9mm because there wrists could not handle the 45 recoil. They also reduced the round size in the M16 to a 22 cal for training purposes.

On the subject of semi auto's or full auto we dont need them as a home defence weapon or for hunting. I am all for owning guns and derive alot of enjoyment target shooting with people as a competitive sport but these types of weapons have no purpose beyond warfare use, IMHO. I have more fun with my old M1 carbine than any of the others. Unless its my 12 gage with a rifled barrel with slugs. Only good for 100 to 150 yards but that works for me.

I'm in love with the M1 because of all the worldwar 2 flicks i watch. But i hear they tend to jam. If i were to buy a rifle it would prob be some kind of bolt action, type.

Isaac wrote:I'm in love with the M1 because of all the worldwar 2 flicks i watch. But i hear they tend to jam. If i were to buy a rifle it would prob be some kind of bolt action, type.

I have an M1 carbine. I have put 100's of rounds though it and it has never jammed. It is a fun little riffle. I suggest you try one.

Diedel wrote:I will never go to the U.S. again. Heck, I park my car in front of some house because let's say my son needs something to drink, and I only have something in the trunk. House owner feels threatened, gets his gun and shoots me because he believed I was planning to assault him. Result: A child w/o father and a wife w/o husband. Ruined for life because you have nothing better to do than to cultivate the deep aggressivity and hatred that seems to spread out more and more in your society.

Good bye, America.

This couldn't POSSIBLY happen anywhere but America right? You write about hatred yet you seem pretty full of it yourself. Either that or you're an idiot.

I fractured my right wrist, I can't take the .45. I have no qualms about putting a few rounds in someone. One, three, whatever. I'd have a minimum of two anyway.

Testiculese wrote:I fractured my right wrist, I can't take the .45. I have no qualms about putting a few rounds in someone. One, three, whatever. I'd have a minimum of two anyway.

Although I'm not particularily knowledgeable on the subject, isn't two rounds to the chest followed by one to the head standard procedure?

Testiculese wrote:a minimum of two

You've guessed correct! Tho' one in the brisket and an evaluation of threat is usually better. Someone can recover from that with immediate care. But that's only if, say, it's my digi camera You touch my guitar, however...well, that's worse.

This house, that's owned by a friend's friend, owns a glass case full of world war 1 and 2 rifles, in working order. Some of them have even killed Germans! No one’s allowed to mess with them now, because they’re suppose to be part of a collection, but it’s a great site. I’ll have to ask him where they all came from.

Diedel, good, stay home, heck I might do you myself just cause I think you're an idiot...

Funny how Deidel talks about never coming to America for the supposed hatred we have here when in fact anti-semitism is on the rise in Germany.

Again?

Why does everyone hate the Jews?