NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been a rash of new laws, labled "stand your ground" laws, enacted in the United States. These laws protect people who have had to use self defense from lawsuits and criminal charges. Are these a good thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Iffy... It's a nice idea, but I worry that it would cause people to attempt to stand their ground when they really SHOULD be running.

And I'm still waiting for data from acidental gun deaths in the states which these have been enacted to see if it does lead to an increase.

It should be the law in every state .

Hell I don't need a law to defend my home and family from invaders. All I need is my 12 gauge shotgun.

Hell I don't need a law to defend my home and family from invaders. All I need is my 12 gauge shotgun.

Well, that's only in my house. I also like my M4 "KittyKat" in the car, the USP .45 on my motorcycle, and the P99 on my bicycle.

Critics of the legistation, however, fear that laws like this will lead to a rise in gun-related deaths by encouraging vigilantism and pre-emptive shootings.
In Afton Bladet there was a little caption that a eighty or something year-old granny in Kentucky - or some other Southern state - fired through her front door when she heard someone was trying to get in. A relative and his girlfriend were harmed. They looked after the granny.

Anyone see any problems with these little story? Particularly in the response time to the knocking with bullets.

Despite such incidences, I support such laws. If people follow correct safety procedures concerning fire-arms, then such incidences will become highly unlikely. One would have to find the fire-arm, unlock it, find the ammunition and then procede to load the fire-arm. That takes more time than taking a loaded gun - like granny most likely did here - and opening fire. It is also my opinion that the only fire-arms that should ever be used for property defence should be shotguns. Easy to load and aim while giving the criminal a courteous warning in the form of a click.

If someone uses reasonable force to protect themselves or their family, then they deserve no punishment. If they use excessive force, then they should be punished. Simple.

If someone uses reasonable force to protect themselves or their family, then they deserve no punishment. If they use excessive force, then they should be punished. Simple.

What would you consider reasonable force?

Nice choice, except the M4, druther a UMP45...

But yes, 'tis indeed a good law, and I don't think it'll be too much a problem, cause most people who would take advantage of the new laws are well-trained, and wouldn't have let the previous court mindset stop them. There might be a slight raise in gun-related crime-related deaths, but there'll not be so many violent crimes after a while, so it'll even out.

What we always try to point out to people at the martial arts dojo is that any time you are willing to carry a weapon, you must be prepared to have that weapon used against you. For all that it galls people, in the case of armed robbery, the best recourse is to surrender and give the robber what he wants. You are significantly less likely to be harmed.

I think that there is logic to these laws, in some ways (although frankly, if a guy threatens to punch you, and you pull a knife on him and kill him, then you've crossed the line and you need to be punished for use of excessive force), but if they are implimented, and the number of gun deaths in the US rises because of twitch-trigger-finger syndrome, I fear that they would remain in place, because of the stubborn nature of the gun-worshiping community.

Iffy... It's a nice idea, but I worry that it would cause people to attempt to stand their ground when they really SHOULD be running.

And I'm still waiting for data from acidental gun deaths in the states which these have been enacted to see if it does lead to an increase.
You ever try to outrun a frakking bullett? I have, and it doesn't work!

Leave it to the Brady Campaign to put their own peculiar spin on thigs: Zach Ragbourn, a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has said that laws like Florida's "are more accurately called 'Shoot First' laws. They allow a person who just feels something bad is going to happen to open fire in public."

If anyone "just feels something bad is going to happen" and opens fire in public, they're going to be chained up for a very long time indeed.

What we always try to point out to people at the martial arts dojo is that any time you are willing to carry a weapon, you must be prepared to have that weapon used against you. For all that it galls people, in the case of armed robbery, the best recourse is to surrender and give the robber what he wants. You are significantly less likely to be harmed.

I think that there is logic to these laws, in some ways (although frankly, if a guy threatens to punch you, and you pull a knife on him and kill him, then you've crossed the line and you need to be punished for use of excessive force), but if they are implimented, and the number of gun deaths in the US rises because of twitch-trigger-finger syndrome, I fear that they would remain in place, because of the stubborn nature of the gun-worshiping community.
Violent crime dropped precipitously in North Carolina after the concealed carry law was passed. And you know what? So far as I know there hasn't been ONE case where a person carrying a concealed weapon has even been charged with excessive force.

What would you consider reasonable force?
The law ( remember that?? ) generally holds that "reasonable force" is that force necessary to subdue your opponent.

What would you consider reasonable force?

Depends on the situation. Shooting someone in your house would be acceptable. Shooting someone running away from your house with your TV would not be.

force necessary to subdue your opponent.

That's pretty much it.

If anyone "just feels something bad is going to happen" and opens fire in public, they're going to be chained up for a very long time indeed.

Indeed. The court system will still want to lock you up, because for some reason political Americans in power hate guns, and now there's even more reason to look hard at a crime.

I still don't understand gun control. The criminial element will always be able to get hold of firearms, why can't we have them?

The law ( remember that?? ) generally holds that "reasonable force" is that force necessary to subdue your opponent.

I think a shot to the kneecaps would suffice in most situation. Hell just the fact that they know they're looking down an end of a gun would be enough.

For my real response:

In the past three weeks here at Tulane, there have been 4 reported incidences of robbery, armed robbery.

They all happened in and around one specific area.

I now carry when I'm going into that area. Why? Because if it so happens that I see something bad going down, I'm going to go to the aid of those who are being threatened. :mp5:

I don't believe in following any law that puts my life in jeopardy.. it's nice to have legal support for that, but doesn't change anything on a practical level.. I'm not even allowed to be armed, legally, but yeah... :rolleyes:

I think a shot to the kneecaps would suffice in most situation. Hell just the fact that they know they're looking down an end of a gun would be enough.

Sadly, shoots to disable are largely a Hollywood myth. They don't happen in real life.

I think a shot to the kneecaps would suffice in most situation. Hell just the fact that they know they're looking down an end of a gun would be enough.

NO! NO! NO! NO!

OK, first off, try shooting someone in the kneecaps under extreme duress (ie, they're threatening you and your family with weapons).

Its not the flippin' movies. Shoot center of mass.

Unless you're Delta Force. Then its double tap on the Vermillian Line.

I now carry when I'm going into that area. Why? Because if it so happens that I see something bad going down, I'm going to go to the aid of those who are being threatened. :mp5:

Just make sure you aren't mistaken for a person doing the threatening by another armed civilian.

NO! NO! NO! NO!

OK, first off, try shooting someone in the kneecaps under extreme duress (ie, they're threatening you and your family with weapons).

Its not the flippin' movies. Shoot center of mass.

Unless you're Delta Force. Then its double tap on the Vermillian Line.

That's true. I guess I would aim for the biggest part of the body, which would be the chest and stomach region.

Just make sure you aren't mistaken for a person doing the threatening by another armed civilian.

Use of Deadly Force is authorized if someone is threatening life or property of either myself or those who are around me. As soon as I see knife/gun, I'm going to put one in the X-ring.

And then, as soon as all hostiles are either down or have surrendered, I'm holstering.

I think a shot to the kneecaps would suffice in most situation. Hell just the fact that they know they're looking down an end of a gun would be enough.
Staring into the barrel of a gun will have a distinctly calming effect on most people, yes. But there's no way most people under stress can aim for the kneecaps with any reasonable expectation of hitting same. Under threat, you always aim for center of mass.

He has a point, if you're under 21 or 24 feet away from someone, you can run up to them and stab them before they can draw and fire.

The chance of the perp getting shot is probably not much greater than before, but now the know they can legally get shot. That helps alot.

gun control is more citizen control to keep pols from assaulting the ruling elite, while not controlling the criminals who don't follow the law

sheeple then bleet for more "protection" and a police state gradually forms

first thing you know there are genocides, serfs, dukes/earls/kings/queens, etc:mad: :gundge: :headbang:

I odn't see why everyone has to have a real gun. Get a gun with rubber bullets. It would really give someone a bad day. And if you have to, a shot to the head can kill someone

You ever try to outrun a frakking bullett? I have, and it doesn't work!
Let me put it this way, do you know of the Black Belt Effect? That's the "I've got a black belt so I can take on anyone and anything" feeling. The effect makes people stand their ground when they SHOULD be looking towards escape. That makes people act agressive when the best course of action is, as it has been noted, to just give the damn wallet and walk away.

How much more so is the effect of carring a loaded weapon? Especially when you know the laws now back you up should you fire at a person.

Now, for trained folks who know how to address a situation and when the best time to pull a weapon or get the hell out of Dodge, this isn't a problem.

However, most people I have met seem to lack this sense (as demonstrated in this thread). That's what I mean by trying to stand when you should run.

Hell, Eut, even if you DO have a gun on you, do you really want to tell me that you could draw and fire faster than a man who already is holding a weapon on you as per your example?

I odn't see why everyone has to have a real gun. Get a gun with rubber bullets. It would really give someone a bad day. And if you have to, a shot to the head can kill someone

Cause rubber bullets usually shoot out of real guns. And rubber bullets are more expensive than lead/steel/brass/whatever bullets, actually...

The real value of these new laws is in home defense. It is now legal to brandish and fire a weapon at someone, whereas before you couldn't in most states. Muggings and other such 'spur of the moment' crimes will probably decrease due to criminals being cowards, but shooting intruders is at the heart of all this.

Good point about the proles rebelling, etc. I forgot about the part where our government becomes a communist fascist state. o_O

gun control is more citizen control to keep pols from assaulting the ruling elite, while not controlling the criminals who don't follow the law

sheeple then bleet for more "protection" and a police state gradually forms

first thing you know there are genocides, serfs, dukes/earls/kings/queens, etc:mad: :gundge: :headbang:
:rolleyes: Well, Japan DOES have an emperor. True, he doesn't DO anything, but it does have one. And gun control as well.

Hell I don't need a law to defend my home and family from invaders. All I need is my 12 gauge shotgun.

In britian you'd be put behind bars.

In some places after you capped a criminal they'd SUE you. NOT good. The Stand your ground laws prevent that.

Iffy... It's a nice idea, but I worry that it would cause people to attempt to stand their ground when they really SHOULD be running.

And I'm still waiting for data from acidental gun deaths in the states which these have been enacted to see if it does lead to an increase.
Sounds like the arguments that were used against must-issue concealed carry permits. "Oh no, the death by firearm rate will rise." Never happened.

NO! NO! NO! NO!

OK, first off, try shooting someone in the kneecaps under extreme duress (ie, they're threatening you and your family with weapons).

Its not the flippin' movies. Shoot center of mass.

Unless you're Delta Force. Then its double tap on the Vermillian Line.

Alright children, and welcome back to home defense 101 with your instructor Designated marksman! In today's lesson we will learn a technique that is guaranteed to put home intruders, violent felons, and never-do-wells down for good-The Mozambique!

What is the mozambique you ask? It is a technique perfected after the 1993 somali raid by US rangers. It involves doube tapping an oppenent twice in the chest, not with your finger silly!, but with your rifle, followed by one to the head!


:p

Sounds like the arguments that were used against must-issue concealed carry permits. "Oh no, the death by firearm rate will rise." Never happened.
At what point did you guys miss the "waiting for the data" when reading that? The laws that have been enacted are new, it remains to be seen if there is an increase or not. But I refuse to speculate ahead of time till I actually start seeing numbers.

Alright children, and welcome back to home defense 101 with your instructor Designated marksman! In today's lesson we will learn a technique that is guaranteed to put home intruders, violent felons, and never-do-wells down for good-The Mozambique!

What is the mozambique you ask? It is a technique perfected after the 1993 somali raid by US rangers. It involves doube tapping an oppenent twice in the chest, not with your finger silly!, but with your rifle, followed by one to the head!


:p

Technically, we're not supposed to do that... :( ...but hey, until you bypass them, if they're moving tactically, they're hostile! And lets not forget! The low-crawl is considered tactical movement!

At what point did you guys miss the "waiting for the data" when reading that? The laws that have been enacted are new, it remains to be seen if there is an increase or not. But I refuse to speculate ahead of time till I actually start seeing numbers.
I didn't add the most important part.

You'll be waiting a long time.

I didn't add the most important part.

You'll be waiting a long time.
Oh? And here I thought that the crime stats were compiled yearly. Possibly every other year.

Dude, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Technically, we're not supposed to do that... :( ...but hey, until you bypass them, if they're moving tactically, they're hostile! And lets not forget! The low-crawl is considered tactical movement!

True dat homeslice!

:fluffle:


I can't beleive I just used the fluffle. I feel so dirty.

True dat homeslice!

:fluffle:

Please never do that to me again. While I am comfortable in my sexuality, I just don't know you that well. :p

Besides: everyone knows that the 12-guage is the buttsechs, but its the Kimber .45s FTW!

Please never do that to me again. While I am comfortable in my sexuality, I just don't know you that well. :p

Besides: everyone knows that the 12-guage is the buttsechs, but its the Kimber .45s FTW!

Are you from the dominion of Ed Sr., ARF-KOM?

Saiga 12c. When you need to HIT IT repeatedly.

Don't worry, I'm not going [limp wrist]. That's the closest thing I can get to that homeboy handshake thing....

huh?

Let me put it this way, do you know of the Black Belt Effect? That's the "I've got a black belt so I can take on anyone and anything" feeling. The effect makes people stand their ground when they SHOULD be looking towards escape. That makes people act agressive when the best course of action is, as it has been noted, to just give the damn wallet and walk away.

How much more so is the effect of carring a loaded weapon? Especially when you know the laws now back you up should you fire at a person.

Now, for trained folks who know how to address a situation and when the best time to pull a weapon or get the hell out of Dodge, this isn't a problem.

However, most people I have met seem to lack this sense (as demonstrated in this thread). That's what I mean by trying to stand when you should run.

Hell, Eut, even if you DO have a gun on you, do you really want to tell me that you could draw and fire faster than a man who already is holding a weapon on you as per your example?


Hmmm I have carried for years and out of necessity...yet I would never deliberatlety put myself in a position where I would have to use the weapon I carry. The world is full of nuts with sydromes...a responsible person will avoid having to shoot and kill some one if at all possible . The fact that I carry makes me LESS likely to put myself into a confrontational situation because the results will end in a likely death .

and if you are paying attention and following simple rules of common sense no one is going to get close enough to do you harm before you are tacticly aware and have taken measures to insure you will be able to put at least two rounds in center mass before any harm comes your way .

Hmmm I have carried for years and out of necessity...yet I would never deliberatlety put myself in a position where I would have to use the weapon I carry. The world is full of nuts with sydromes...a responsible person will avoid having to shoot and kill some one if at all possible . The fact that I carry makes me LESS likely to put myself into a confrontational situation because the results will end in a likely death .

and if you are paying attention and following simple rules of common sense no one is going to get close enough to do you harm before you are tacticly aware and have taken measures to insure you will be able to put at least two rounds in center mass before any harm comes your way .
This assumes that most people a. follow the same sense you do. b. are tacticly aware. I haven't noticed these qualities in the majority of the people I have met.

If you think about it, following your own advice and awareness above, you don't even need a gun because you'd never be in a situation to need it. But, since people still are robbed, murdered, raped, and so on...

But, as said, I will have to wait to see if there are any actual studies about this.

Well, it worked for Gandalf, didn't it?
"YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!"

Then again, maybe it should only be applicable to old guys with flowing white beard and robes who can prove themselves to be over 1000years old and can talk to animals.

Which pretty much just means Eut.

Cause rubber bullets usually shoot out of real guns. And rubber bullets are more expensive than lead/steel/brass/whatever bullets, actually...

The real value of these new laws is in home defense. It is now legal to brandish and fire a weapon at someone, whereas before you couldn't in most states. Muggings and other such 'spur of the moment' crimes will probably decrease due to criminals being cowards, but shooting intruders is at the heart of all this.

Good point about the proles rebelling, etc. I forgot about the part where our government becomes a communist fascist state. o_O
What nonsense. This law permits standing your ground in the open, not in your house. It is generally considered under common law that self defense is a proper defense to murder in the house, that has existed, that always existed (castle doctrine), however, this allows a person who has an avenue of escape (outside of the home) to kill somone if threatened. It's troubling. Human life precious enough that self-defense should be limited as much as possible, not something like in the wild west with shootouts any time anyone insults anyone. If you have a way to get out of a situation without using deadly force, use it.


Don't get me started on the use of deadly force to defend property. Criminal or not, we have grown past the stage of hanging people for theft. Human life is worth far more then any property.

I approve.

being:
Violent crime dropped precipitously in North Carolina after the concealed carry law was passed.

but as to the second point:
And you know what? So far as I know there hasn't been ONE case where a person carrying a concealed weapon has even been charged with excessive force.

well consider...

Monday: person carrying a concealed weapon shoots a would-be mugger. They're charged because they used 'excessive force.'

Tuesday: law is passed saying that shooting would-be muggers is now justified because there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Wednesday: person carrying a concealed weapon shoots a would-be mugger. They aren't charged because the law now says that their force wasn't 'excessive.'

For the record, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just pointing out a loophole in the logic used to substantiate it. To say that no-one's been charged with a particular criminal act, after that act has been decriminalised, is fallacious. If it's no longer criminal, then of course they won't be charged. That does not, however, make the act 'right,' merely legal today (as opposed to illegal yesterday).

For what it's worth, though, I would love it if it were legal for my friends and I-- if we saw a gay-bashing taking place-- to reduce the attacker(s) to a smear on the street with the approximate consistency of rice pudding. To prosecute intervention with extreme prejudice. But I'm told that that's illegal and they poo-poo my vigilante ideals. You can imagine, then, how I might feel about 'stand your ground' laws. :mp5: