YAGT: Stand your ground law...

[Deudalus]

I'm not saying I'm a big bad ass or anything, I haven't actually been in a fight since I was 18, that said I am 6'5 and 250 lbs.

I'm 8" larger than the average guy and 75 pounds heavier and workout and play sports mainly basketball regularly.

If I wanted to beat some poor lady up and she ran what would happen?
If I wanted to beat up most guys and they ran what would happen?

I'm about the most laid back peaceful guy you'll meet, most big dudes are I think its the little man syndrome that typically starts fights IMO, but if I really snapped would it be that hard for me to do very serious or fatal damage to the average person?

I don't think so.

I personally have ZERO problem with the stand your ground law and I think the Trayvon case has NOTHING to do with stand your ground. Zimmerman gave up that right when he stalked him. That case is 100% about self defense at this point.

 

[JulesMaximus]

And that's part of the problem. Of course CCW holders argue that it is a right to have their weapon, which I agree with to a certain extent. Many of them complain they even have to take a class.

Personally, I think its crazy that it is MUCH easier to get a CCW permit than it is a Drivers License. Even in the most strict states.

Driving isn't a right... why should carrying a firearm be one?

Police spend many hours training to use a firearm and encounter far more dangerous situations on a daily basis than your average citizen yet they still make mistakes so who could possibly think the average citizen is more capable of making the right decisions when it comes to life and death than a trained law enforcement officer? I can answer that actually... the delusional. And with laws like this they seem to also be held to less liability than a police officer, which is absolutely insane.

 

[etrigan420]

Driving isn't a right... why should carrying a firearm be one?

Police spend many hours training to use a firearm and encounter far more dangerous situations on a daily basis than your average citizen yet they still make mistakes so what makes anyone think the average citizen is more capable of making the right decisions when it comes to life and death than a trained law enforcement officer? I can answer that actually... the delusional.

Wow...when you open a can of worms you REALLY OPEN A CAN OF WORMS!!!

IIRC, don't you own some guns though Jules?

 

[kyp275]

Driving isn't a right... why should carrying a firearm be one?

not touching that one with a 10 foot pole

I'm not sure why post is considered trolling. You were right to ask how many people I know IRL that are CCW holders, but then went completely dick-face when you assumed you knew teh answer before I responded.

Indeed I was, but no more of a dick-face than you are with your blanket condemnation of CCW holders.

To answer your question. How many people do I know really really well that are CCW holders? I'd say probably 30ish. How many people have I dealt with regarding this specific subject? Hundreds, maybe even thousands. You see, I used to work for one of the largest CCW training schools in the country. I know the type of person I am talking about because I interacted with them on a daily basis. One of my good friends is a national training counselor for the NRA and I have a lot of other friends who are certified instructors. I have taken the CCW class myself and have observed many others.

What is your experience based on?

10 years in the Marine Corps, friends in the LE and training field, people I met at the local gun range etc. While not CCW-specific, most DO have CCWs, and I certainly haven't had the same experience you have where it apparently convinced you that most CCW holders are practically sociopaths.

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't believe I've met them, or don't believe the opinion I have of them? Either way, I guess there's nothing I can do about that *shrugs*

But to clarify, yes I meant met in real life, or at least spoken to on the phone.

I don't believe you've met thousands of CCW holders that have acted in a manner that would give you the opinion you have. It's complete BS.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Wow...when you open a can of worms you REALLY OPEN A CAN OF WORMS!!!

IIRC, don't you own some guns though Jules?

I own 12 guns to be exact including 5 handguns.

 

[etrigan420]

I own 12 guns to be exact including 5 handguns.

...and in Cali, so I'm assuming you *don't* have a CCW? How do you feel about SYG laws?

Genuinely curious.

 

[JulesMaximus]

...and in Cali, so I'm assuming you *don't* have a CCW? How do you feel about SYG laws?

Genuinely curious.

I think they're ridiculous. You already have a right to defend yourself so these laws seem kind of pointless to me and with the way they seem to be enforced it looks almost like a license to kill.

And no, I don't have a CCW. It is practically impossible to get one in any of the major metropolitan areas of California, which is where I live.

Honestly, I'm not opposed to CCW as a concept. I'm more opposed to the crazy people who seem to want it so badly. And I know people like this. In fact, the governor of our state recently banned open carry of an unloaded weapon because lunatics were doing this at gun rights rallies (because open carry of a loaded weapon is already illegal). Really, is there anything more useless than an unloaded weapon? :whiste:

I own guns because I enjoy shooting sports and I would defend my wife and family if I had to but I really have no desire to add concealing a firearm on my body to my daily list of things I need to do before I leave the house each day.

I guess you could say I have a lot of skepticism about how we are going about arming the population and even the merits of doing so. It seems like a process that is ripe for controversy, ripe for mistakes, and ripe for failure... and all it would take is a couple lunatics going off the deep end or even just a few bad judgement calls, like the Zimmerman case. The media would eat it up and before you know it you'd have knee jerk laws galore.

My .02

 

[PrinceofWands]

Right, he also noted that it fell into the over reaching exaggeration column.

I am assuming you mean you've seen them in real life ...unfortunately, I do not believe you. If so they also fit into the over exaggeration group. Even if you've seen two hundred people that act like that, which I do not believe is anywhere close to reality, that is still not even a worth-mentioning sample of CCW permits holders.

Another clarification...I meant that I'm an extremist, with an extremist view (albeit arrived at logically, not emotionally or as part of group doctrine). I didn't mean that I was exaggerating about being entitled to shoot someone to prevent an attack. Minor point I'm sure, but I prefer things stay clear whenever possible.

 

[LunarRay]

...and in Cali, so I'm assuming you *don't* have a CCW? How do you feel about SYG laws?

Genuinely curious.

California does have a concealed weapon permitting process. It has the normal criteria like being 21 and etc... but, also has a need element that must be approved by (as I recall) the Attorney General. Different counties and cities have different criteria but mostly it is the same. Rural areas are more likely to have a permit granted than a very urban area but the need criteria still must be met.

I don't mind folks with sound minds having CWP but would not want a whole list of folks being permitted... Felons, Dopers and like that...

Normally, folks are allowed to have 4 dogs... and not have a kennel permit...
Two of mine are Silkies and only know how to bark and let me baby know to check out what's up... My baby is only 85 lbs... is a Black Lab/Pit bull who loves me. She has no neck... that I can find... only one large head... I'm sure a gun toting moron could kill her but IF they miss... Well... She IS trained to protect (in Irish hehehehehe).

She is more than enough for me... but she sure does eat a lot...

 

[xj0hnx]

Another clarification...I meant that I'm an extremist, with an extremist view (albeit arrived at logically, not emotionally or as part of group doctrine). I didn't mean that I was exaggerating about being entitled to shoot someone to prevent an attack. Minor point I'm sure, but I prefer things stay clear whenever possible.

Right, but you wouldn't just shoot someone during ANY physical encounter, like they stepped on your foot in a bar, or they yelled at you menacingly.

 

[BladeVenom]

Driving isn't a right... why should carrying a firearm be one?

This little thing called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Right, but you wouldn't just shoot someone during ANY physical encounter, like they stepped on your foot in a bar, or they yelled at you menacingly.

Oh, gotcha...no. It has to be intentional imminent violence without reasonable provocation. That qualifies it as felony assault with the potential for serious bodily harm, covering both moral/legal qualifiers for self defense (to stop a serious crime in action, to prevent harm to an innocent person).

I would, and have, prepared for the possibility from the things you mentioned. I get to a clear space, remove constricting outer garments, etc. Things so that if it continues to escalate I can draw quickly and respond in the most efficient manner possible. While I'm doing that I try to de-escalate as well as I'm able without weakening my position.

 

[Lithium381]

This little thing called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

basically this

 

[shortylickens]

Driving isn't a right... why should carrying a firearm be one?

Police spend many hours training to use a firearm and encounter far more dangerous situations on a daily basis than your average citizen yet they still make mistakes so who could possibly think the average citizen is more capable of making the right decisions when it comes to life and death than a trained law enforcement officer? I can answer that actually... the delusional. And with laws like this they seem to also be held to less liability than a police officer, which is absolutely insane.

On the grand scheme of things (country and world) overall I believe its better to leave a right in place even if theres occasional accidents. The alternative (getting rid of something which keeps us free) is far worse.
Obviously since guns are dangerous people do need to get more training, practice and experience with them before going out and using the things on their own. Driving is deadly too, thats why we have classes and written tests and road tests.
My beef is that as soon as people get along with their car they stop worrying about the rules and start running reds, speeding, fucking around not paying attention.
Our country needs a lot more discipline OR, individuals need to lose their privileges, not the masses.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If having a gun is so important, why are so many people so cavalier about the requirements for getting one?

Why is it easier to get a gun than a sharpened samurai Katana? Why is it ILLEGAL to have the Katana? Nunchaku? Because they are deadly?

When an instrument is that powerful, that balance tipping, the responsibility for it should be equally so. You carry a weapon that can kill with your finger, you BETTER know how to use it and be trained to be responsible with it.

Also, flinching at a waiting period? I don't think so. If you can wait 1-2 weeks for a gun, most likely the reason you want it is not for protection or defense. Not unless you are in some Lifetime Television Drama or something. This is something you will carry for years. It should have the weight and responsibility attached to it making it more than an impulse buy at K-Mart.

If guns were "no big deal" then there would not be such an uproar over them. Respect them as they should be and maybe we could have a better, HEALTHIER, attitude towards their ownership and use.

 

[xBiffx]

If having a gun is so important, why are so many people so cavalier about the requirements for getting one?

Why is it easier to get a gun than a sharpened samurai Katana? Why is it ILLEGAL to have the Katana? Nunchaku? Because they are deadly?

When an instrument is that powerful, that balance tipping, the responsibility for it should be equally so. You carry a weapon that can kill with your finger, you BETTER know how to use it and be trained to be responsible with it.

Also, flinching at a waiting period? I don't think so. If you can wait 1-2 weeks for a gun, most likely the reason you want it is not for protection or defense. Not unless you are in some Lifetime Television Drama or something. This is something you will carry for years. It should have the weight and responsibility attached to it making it more than an impulse buy at K-Mart.

If guns were "no big deal" then there would not be such an uproar over them. Respect them as they should be and maybe we could have a better, HEALTHIER, attitude towards their ownership and use.

You have anything to back up that BS? I would argue that gun owners are the least cavalier about it. But yet again you bring a false equivalency that someone who owns guns obviously thinks that they are no big deal and should be effortless to own. Also, where is it illegal to own a sharpened Katana outside some batshit crazy liberal town? Just curious because I have never heard that one before.

I have taken enough training that my fists are considered deadly weapons. Would you like to disarm me of those? I'm willing to bet that someone could turn a spoon into a deadly weapon if they were so inclined. Point is, killing with a gun requires as much skill as many other "deadly weapons" so why does the left have an irrational fear of something that requires a fair bit of control to use?

The only ones making an uproar are the people who have nightmares about guns jumping out of a closet and chasing them around their house eager to shoot at them.

 

[JulesMaximus]

On the grand scheme of things (country and world) overall I believe its better to leave a right in place even if theres occasional accidents. The alternative (getting rid of something which keeps us free) is far worse.
Obviously since guns are dangerous people do need to get more training, practice and experience with them before going out and using the things on their own. Driving is deadly too, thats why we have classes and written tests and road tests.
My beef is that as soon as people get along with their car they stop worrying about the rules and start running reds, speeding, fucking around not paying attention.
Our country needs a lot more discipline OR, individuals need to lose their privileges, not the masses.

I can agree with that.

 

[xj0hnx]

If having a gun is so important, why are so many people so cavalier about the requirements for getting one?

The most "cavalier" about more requirements are the anti-gun left.

Why is it easier to get a gun than a sharpened samurai Katana? Why is it ILLEGAL to have the Katana? Nunchaku? Because they are deadly?

There's nothing illegal about owning a Katana, Nunchaku, switchblades, brass knuckles, etc ...you just can't carry them in most places. And personally, I think those laws are retarded too, who really cares if someone is carrying around brass knuckles?

 

[etrigan420]

I think they're ridiculous. You already have a right to defend yourself so these laws seem kind of pointless to me and with the way they seem to be enforced it looks almost like a license to kill.

And no, I don't have a CCW. It is practically impossible to get one in any of the major metropolitan areas of California, which is where I live.

Honestly, I'm not opposed to CCW as a concept. I'm more opposed to the crazy people who seem to want it so badly. And I know people like this. In fact, the governor of our state recently banned open carry of an unloaded weapon because lunatics were doing this at gun rights rallies (because open carry of a loaded weapon is already illegal). Really, is there anything more useless than an unloaded weapon? :whiste:

I own guns because I enjoy shooting sports and I would defend my wife and family if I had to but I really have no desire to add concealing a firearm on my body to my daily list of things I need to do before I leave the house each day.

I guess you could say I have a lot of skepticism about how we are going about arming the population and even the merits of doing so. It seems like a process that is ripe for controversy, ripe for mistakes, and ripe for failure... and all it would take is a couple lunatics going off the deep end or even just a few bad judgement calls, like the Zimmerman case. The media would eat it up and before you know it you'd have knee jerk laws galore.

My .02

Good post, and I agree with just about every point.

After many hours at the range and several classes, I (fairly recently...several months ago) made the choice to CC. I just consider it an extension of having the necessary means to protect myself and my family.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You have anything to back up that BS? I would argue that gun owners are the least cavalier about it. But yet again you bring a false equivalency that someone who owns guns obviously thinks that they are no big deal and should be effortless to own. Also, where is it illegal to own a sharpened Katana outside some batshit crazy liberal town? Just curious because I have never heard that one before.

Enough people think it is "no big deal" and they are ALLOWED to do so.

If it WERE a big deal to everyone that owned one, then things like the 2 week waiting period would be a drop in the bucket. Seems ironic that those, yourself included, that think that everyone takes this so seriously is up in arms, literally, whenever ANYTHING is proposed that would make it more difficult to obtain a firearm on a whim.

Also, clue, don't start your shit with "BS". You are trying to say that you take this rationally, responding emotionally right out of the gate is a sure-fire way to lose all respect from anyone willing to listen.

I have taken enough training that my fists are considered deadly weapons. Would you like to disarm me of those?

Straw man. And in some legal cases you can be brought up on charges for using your fists if they can prove that you have trained.

I'm willing to bet that someone could turn a spoon into a deadly weapon if they were so inclined.

McGuyver Strawman. The time/skill that it takes to do so makes that a moot point. A gun takes someone 5 minutes to make lethal. Just about ANYONE can do it. Not so with a spoon.

Point is, killing with a gun requires as much skill as many other "deadly weapons" so why does the left have an irrational fear of something that requires a fair bit of control to use?

Really? You are saying that that 5yo that picks up a gun and shoots his friend has as much skill and training as a Krav Maga expert killing you with chopsticks?


Not.

The only ones making an uproar are the people who have nightmares about guns jumping out of a closet and chasing them around their house eager to shoot at them.

Red herring.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The most "cavalier" about more requirements are the anti-gun left.



There's nothing illegal about owning a Katana, Nunchaku, switchblades, brass knuckles, etc ...you just can't carry them in most places. And personally, I think those laws are retarded too, who really cares if someone is carrying around brass knuckles?

I have heard different. In many states, you cannot have a SHARPENED sword.

Gun > Sharpened sword in the deadliness category AFAIC.

But I am not calling for them to become illegal. I am only calling for a UNILATERAL WEIGHT OF OWNERSHIP to be conveyed on ALL legal owners. Not just the % that takes it seriously.

Even with that, you will still get mistakes, emotional usage, and other incidents, but if people were required to have as much training and checks as cops when it came to this, I would trust the ones holding, and concealing them, a bit more.

 

[xj0hnx]

I have heard different. In many states, you cannot have a SHARPENED sword.

Where's you hear this? The ninja in your third grade gym class?

 

[irishScott]

I just took a look at the statistics you linked to. Again, I am not saying that all CCW holders are going around committing crimes.... but, your statistics don't really prove anything.

So those reports show that out of all the crimes committed only .5 percent (or whatever, depending on the category) were committed by a CCW holder. Seems like a low number, but not when you consider the fact that only 1.8% of Texas has CCW's. So of ALL the citizens, only 1.8% can even fall within this category. Of course the number is going to be low. You don't have that many people, relatively speaking, that could even commit a crime and fall within that report.

True. A better representation would be to look at those numbers in terms of total CCW holders, which, in Texas, in 2009 was 402,914.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/admini.../PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2009.pdf

Counting up the total crime from the previous stats, we have 101 convictions of any crime out out of 402,914. That's a .025% crime rate. Violent crime convictions are even lower.

 

[JulesMaximus]

True. A better representation would be to look at those numbers in terms of total CCW holders, which, in Texas, in 2009 was 402,914.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/admini.../PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2009.pdf

Counting up the total crime from the previous stats, we have 101 convictions of any crime out out of 402,914. That's a .025% crime rate. Violent crime convictions are even lower.

I think drawing conclusions about crime rates among law abiding citizens is kind of pointless.

Most people obey the law... even non-CCW holders.