Hooray for our legal system

[StifflerMichael]

I just joined in:
One major problem with having a gun in your house is that if you do use it to shoot and kill an intruder, do you really expect that the legal system will simply say 'okay, he did it in self-defense' and let you go off? I seriously doubt it, I would expect a major court battle with plenty of expenses and stress. Especially if the intruder is unarmed (many experienced burgler know better than to arm themselves because that turns their crime into armed robbery if they are caught). Remember, the legal system does blow!
Plus, killing someone is not something to be taken lightly, in most cases, it does come with it's own load of stress--no matter how tough you think you are (most soldiers are pretty tough to me, and they experience a lot of stress from having to kill people). De-humanizing the criminal and satisfying a desire for revenge may not make things better either.

 

[ZAK]

Really it depends on the state. In Texas you may use letheal force providing you're being threated on you're own property, and it is at night. Yes, you will have a grand jury review you're case, but providing you followed the law to the letter it is pretty much a open, and shut case. This happed to a friend of mine about a year ago. He was incarserated for about 6 hours after the shooting, and it took the grand jury about 2 Mo. in the end it was deemed justified. Texas is also a conceiled weapon state. Theft, and carjackings still occur but have dropped dramaticaly.

 

[Travis]

That is a good point...it a very serious matter that you have to consider. There is a sain that goes "Cold hands - Self-Defense, Hot hands - Murder". Can you convinse a jury that it was self-defense? A lot of people need to know your options and laws. Again, I think taking a gun course on self-defense is VERY IMPORTANT but a lot of people say I do not need it. Which is crap...

Odd that Pyro only posted once here...

 

[Pyro]

Quote[/b] (Travis @ June 07 2005,10:08)]Odd that Pyro only posted once here...  

Not really. I said that my original purpose was to vent and I did not expect such a huge debate to ensue. I have been following I just have not felt the need to say anything more on the matter. You all don't need my to throw in my 2 cents to keep this thread going

In fact you all seem to be doing fine without me. And I must applaude you all for remaining civil, I appreciate that given how many other touch threads degenerate into name calling.


In the end I will do what I chose. Some will probably argee with my decision and others won't and to both I would say the same thing: Whether you approve or disapprove does not change my decision. I respect your opinion, kindly respect mine.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy]

Pyro, I will agree with you decision no matter what you choose to do, not because it is what I would do or if I think it's the right decision. I will agree with you because it's your decision to make, not mine. You know your situation better than anybody here and no matter what, you can make a better decision for your situation than any of us ever could.

Quote[/b] ]In the 21st century, the age of highly advanced, extremely destructive and very complicated weapons systems, I don't think the average citizen should have access to tanks, mobile artillery, stealth bombers and weapons of mass destruction

I would have to say that if it was legal and I had the money to buy one I would own a tank.
I currently own a f17 nighthawk stealth fighter, A-10, f-22, f-14, f-16, thunderchief, and a few other military fighter jets.
I can fly every one, and I can and have used to the cannons and other of each jets weapon systems.
If anyone would like a demonstration or fly any of my jets, just stop by my house after I get situated in NC, and get my PC set up.

 

[rattler]

actually if you have the $ and are willing to fill out the miles of paper work and the background checks, ect ect ect you can own a jet or a tank. there are some russian MiGs on the market for several hundred thousand dollars, WWII tanks can be had for less. as far as the common man versus modern millitary, it depends on the fighting. in vietnam semi trained farmers with a few AK47s and such put up one heck of a defence against the latest and greatest we had to offer.

 

[aprilh]

Quote[/b] ]Larry the Cable Guy said "Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do."

Oh, that's sweet. Larry the Cable Conservative is my Autuer.......Does Larry know that the # 3 cause of death of women in the US is..... men.  The #1 cause of death of pregnant women in the US is ....men.  

I can pull statistics out my behind all day...my job is heavily involved with health statistics.  

Look it up on the NIH website if you don't believe me.

 

[Travis]

That is not what I learned on the discovery channel. I learned that the female spider eats the male spider after love making. Happy, Happy, Dead..

 

[aprilh]

Yeah....God would have stopped Klebold and Harris..but God was out to lunch when this happened?.....Since god is allegedly omniscient....he knew what Klebold and Harris set out to do. He didn't lift one stinking finger to stop it.

 

[LauraZ5]

Quote[/b] ]Happy, Happy, Dead..

Could be worse, you could be a male praying mantis and get eaten during the process.  The female mantid starts with his head and works down. Sort of Happy, Half Dead and don't know it, Dead. At least the male spider gets to finish up before he gets eaten.

And what about those poor Seahorses. Look at what they get stuck with compliments of their ladies.  

April, for Christmas I can make sure Santa slips a Larry the Cable Conservative video into your stocking. I didn't know you held him in such high esteem. Should we add him to our shrine?

 

[ALLOSAURZ]

In my opinion as long as someone goes through all the red tape and training as is required by the united states government then said person should be allowed to own any weapon for historical, recreational, or self defense purposes. Columbine would have happened with or without guns. Would there have been less death involved if guns were banned? Who knows. What I do know is if a crazy person is motivated enough then they find anything to use as a weapon. My friend who is training to become an EOD for the army (explosive ordinance disposal) told me that you can make about a dozen or more simple pipe bombs using products found in walkmart for less then $20. The problem today isn't the weapons used it is the people. Weapons are only a tool. The best means to prevent violent crimes in America is to find the underlying root of the problem whether psychological, economical etc and figure out how to solve it. Oh and another thing. Shooting someone with a gun in selfdefense isn't murder as the legal definition of murder is

Quote[/b] ]Main Entry: [1]mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

And defending your self isn't unlawful in America.

 

[Ozzy]

There was an incident in a school in Cleveland about a month ago where a student make a bomb out of a plastic drink bottle and two other ingredients that every home has but I won't say here. All of the ingredients costed less than one dollar. One student was injured.
Maybe after we get guns banned we should also ban coke.

 

[Treaqum]

Thats fine with me

 

[herenorthere]

Guns are more convenient. It's hard to imagine a couple having an argument and one assembling a bomb in the heat of the moment to kill the other. If grabbing a gun is as easy as grabbing a Big Mac, we'll find ourselves in a violent, overweight society. Oops, we are.

 

[Treaqum]

Herenorthere what's that about bombs. That would certainly be a more interesting news story. I can imagine it all now:
"Couple has argument, husband blown up.
Today in somewhereville Mrs. Doe blew up Mr. Doe. She says a heated argument came up and so she assenbled a bomb in the heat of the moment. It apparently never dawned on her this would destroy there house and this might not be the right thing to do. A few hours later the Does house blew up while Mrs. Doe was shopping for a dress for Mr. Does funeral. Apparently Mr. Doe did not know anything about the bomb even though it is reported he was sitting right next to it."
"Next up at 6:30: obseity in our children"

If that ever happens the stupidity of Americans will have eclipsed all others.

 

[ALLOSAURZ]

Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ June 08 2005,9:16)]Guns are more convenient.  It's hard to imagine a couple having an argument and one assembling a bomb in the heat of the moment to kill the other.  If grabbing a gun is as easy as grabbing a Big Mac, we'll find ourselves in a violent, overweight society.  Oops, we are.

Knives forks aluminum baseballbats pipes and other large blunt or pointy objects are just as convenient as guns and could potentially be deadlier. I maintain that if you are heated enough to shoot someone then you are heated enough to turn anything into a violent weapon. Personally I'd rather someone empty a clip into me then stab me 70 or 80 times like I have seen on some of the court and forensic science shows on court TV/discovery channel.

 

[LauraZ5]

Valid point Allosaurz.

 

[herenorthere]

Right. And a Chihuahua can kill with a well placed bite, so there's no difference between a chihuahua or a tiger. Both can kill. But I'm irrational. I think chihuahuas are less threatening than tigers the same way I consider a candlestick or stapler to be less dangerous than a gun.

 

[aprilh]

Thank you, herenorthere!

 

[aprilh]

Quote[/b] ]April, for Christmas I can make sure Santa slips a Larry the Cable Conservative video into your stocking. I didn't know you held him in such high esteem. Should we add him to our shrine?

Oh yeah....he totally belongs in your shrine. I think he's funny, anyway...conservative or not. I just think people should know where he's coming from, in case they're too dense to figger it out for themselves.