NationStates Jolt Archive

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.

I'm mildly confused, but I will answer your second question.

Yes, I would feel very threatened if only the police and military had firearms. History has shown that the greatest threats to the average citizen comes from their own governing authority.

I'm mildly confused, but I will answer your second question.

Yes, I would feel very threatened if only the police and military had firearms. History has shown that the greatest threats to the average citizen comes from their own governing authority.

Hi!
Thanks for your answer.
I'm with you here. Of course it's a major discrepancy between the USA and Europe or any other countries without armed people, because you are traditionally used to it and never knew it elsewise. So it just appears normal to me, that you stick to your regulations as well as the people from mentioned nations without the right to own guns will stick to their regulations.

What is it that confused you, by the way? :confused:

I can't tell if you are trying to say that there is a new law that protects users of firearms if they feel threatened, or if the law is stripping owners of the right to bear arms because of minor infractions or because the police feel the gun owner might be a threat.

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses

You mean the laws that state you can shoot someone for cutting you off on the freeway or looking at your wife funny?

No ... I don't like those at all. Law enforcement should not be placed in the hands of the citizenry. I do not condone vigilanteism.

@ Lunatic Goofballs:

The basis of the discussion was a report in “Der Spiegel”.
Unfortunately this German report did not use the original English name of the law which makes it hard for me to refer to the correct name of the new law.

I’ll translate the first chapter for you, this should shed some light on it:

Auf Druck der Waffenlobby haben 15 US-Bundesstaaten in den vergangenen Monaten das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung drastisch ausgeweitet. Wer glaubt, er werde bedroht, darf schießen - und wenn es nur um Mülltüten geht.

By reason of the pressure of the weapons lobby, 15 Federal States did expand the right to self-defense drastically. Who assumes to be threatened may shoot – even if it’s only about a garbage bag.

@ Lunatic Goofballs:

The basis of the discussion was a report in “Der Spiegel”.
Unfortunately this German report did not use the original English name of the law which makes it hard for me to refer to the correct name of the new law.

I’ll translate the first chapter for you, this should shed some light on it:

Okay, I understand now. Odd that I've heard nothing about this. Having just earned my pistol permit, I keep track of such things. I know that Florida recently passed some impressive gun legislature, but I don't know specifics.

You mean the laws that state you can shoot someone for cutting you off on the freeway or looking at your wife funny?

No ... I don't like those at all. Law enforcement should not be placed in the hands of the citizenry. I do not condone vigilanteism.

Yes, Keruvalia,
this is what I was trying to refer to.
I can't help but (as usual) the report of Der Spiegel seems a little lurid.

But don't you think that one who wants to shoot one down for a minor reason, wouldn't do it if there wouldn't be the new law?

My opinion is, that even in countries with strict regulations everybody who really wants to have a gun and wants commit crime by using it, will find a possibility to purchase weapons suiting his taste.

Am I wrong?

Okay, I understand now. Odd that I've heard nothing about this. Having just earned my pistol permit, I keep track of such things. I know that Florida recently passed some impressive gun legislature, but I don't know specifics.

But do you think that this will change the "behaviour" of gun owners.
I can't believe it.
I don't think that the guys are saying now:
"Fine. Finally I'm allowed to shoot around for whatever reason. I was waiting so long for it. And now I have to go out and find some victims!"

I don't think that this will happen.
On the other hand ... what's the background for this new law?
I don't get it!

Somehow I don't think any state is going to allow citizens to shoot just for 'feeling' threatened.. but we'll see.

That said, I've never been one to adhere to gun laws, so the rest don't much affect me.

I am not sure about that actual law, but I know here in my state we can use deadly force if someone breaks into our house and we percieve that they are a threat. (it is I believe called the "make my day law")

it's been around here for a while, and there are even police officers who joke about it

"if you shoot him on the way out, be sure and drag him back into the house"

;)

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns
What? I heard there were 10 million privately owned guns in Germany.

What? I heard there were 10 million privately owned guns in Germany.

Really? Never heard about it. Of course there are some people owning guns legally, but that's only for a minority like the guys in shooting clubs.
And hunters/forest rangers of course.

But, as far as I know, if you don't belong to above mentioned group of people you'd need VERY good arguments for a gun license (e.g. if you are a celebrity who once were threatened). And only with that license you'll be able to purchase weapons and it will be registered. No anonymous purchasing even if you have a gun license.

Considering all this the number of 10 million private owned guns appears way too high for me. I'll try to find out via Google ...

Done!
I'm baffled!
10 million is correct, indeed!!!!
But this counts only for officially registered weapons.
I have these figures from the homepage of a shooting club
(http://www.schuetzenverein-eisenach.de/Waffenrecht/Zahlen_und_Fakten/Zahlen%20und%20Fakten%20Waffenbesitz.pdf)
and they are affirming that the registered weapons are only about one third of all weapons.
The rest of it are illegal. Of course this is (and can only be) an estimated figure.
But! The using of these guns is strictly limited. I'm not sure, though, but I think that gun owners here are not allowed to carry their weapons in public.
Only in their clubs. Apart from the hunters, certainly. Their "club" is in the woods...

Anyway ... I stand by my words. I for example wouldn't get a license, just for the matter of fact that I'm not able to give effective reasons to the authority.

Anyway ... I stand by my words. I for example wouldn't get a license, just for the matter of fact that I'm not able to give effective reasons to the authority.

well, that kinda sucks. I wouldn't want to live in a country where I couldn't have a gun (yeah, I know there are people here who can't have them, but still I could if I wanted to)

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.


" Stand your ground "laws ? is that the new law you are talking about ? it just says no one can use force on you without you being able to shoot them. before you had to prove you feared for your life...now all they have to do is use force to enter your car or use force to stop you from going into the bank a store or your house...whats to fear ? I do not mug people..muggers need to fear me . Now I can shoot them at will . Istead of just holding them for the police to collect ( something I most likely will still do ) . I have been carrying for over twenty years..it really doesn't change much ..for me .

You mean the laws that state you can shoot someone for cutting you off on the freeway or looking at your wife funny?

No ... I don't like those at all. Law enforcement should not be placed in the hands of the citizenry. I do not condone vigilanteism.

Actually, you're misstating the law.

You don't have to retreat in order to use your weapon. If you are being attacked in public (in most states), you have an obligation to run away first if talking nice isn't working.

In most states, if you are being attacked at home, you don't have to run away (California and New York and Illinois being notable exceptions - you have to run and run and run, even if someone is raping your wife - you're expected to leave her behind).

The change involves the necessity of running. It's called "stand your ground" for a reason.

You still have to prove that the person posed an immediate lethal threat to you, or was committing significant bodily harm (rape, beating) to you or an immediate person around you.

Thank you for completely misstating the law for political gain.

So you can make sense...

Last week, Governor Jeb Bush signed a bill that has become known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. The law immunizes citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Critics of the law are afraid it will promote vigilantism. Supporters say that it merely brings Florida into line with the majority of other states. But the truth is the law goes beyond what other states are doing.



In this column, I'll discuss the new law, and argue that it is an example of a simple reform that was hijacked by the NRA.

What Florida Self-Defense Law Previously Was Like

Until last week, the law in Florida concerning self-defense could be divided into two parts: First, there were the rules that governed when deadly force could be used if one was attacked in one's own home. Second, there were the rules that governed when deadly force could be used if one were attacked outside of one's own home.

To explain the prior Florida rules, I will use the example of Lisa, who is attacked by Bob.

First, imagine Lisa is attacked by Bob in her own home. She could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her. Moreover, even if Bob was a burglar interested only in her property and she had the option of running outside of her house to safety, she could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her if she did not run away. Put simply, she is allowed to "stand her ground."

This is known as the "castle doctrine" -- based on the maxim that "One's home is one's castle" -- and it governs the rules of self-defense for criminal and tort law in almost every state.

Second, imagine, instead, that Lisa is attacked by Bob on the street in Florida. In this instance, she cannot use deadly force if she can retreat safely from Bob. (For instance, suppose a drunken, knife-wielding Bob confronts Lisa in front of a bar featuring armed bouncers, into which Lisa can safely escape.) So even if Lisa knows Bob will kill her if she "stands her ground," she cannot kill him while still being able to retreat.

Florida's retreat doctrine reflected a certain attitude among courts which might seem quaint today, but is easy to understand. Florida courts took the position that life was so precious -- even the lives of people like Bob -- that victims of violent attacks should not kill unless it became absolutely necessary.

The bottom line, then, was that victims had to take advantage of a "safe" retreat except when attacked in their own homes. But what if the victim doesn't retreat? What consequences follow? Could she be prosecuted, sued, or both?

In almost every state except Florida, Lisa could not be criminally prosecuted. In a majority of states, she also cannot be sued in tort.

But some states would allow Lisa to be sued. And the Restatement (Second) of Torts -- a classic statement of tort law principles -- agrees: Its Section 65 would still allow Bob to sue Lisa for personal injuries if she responded to his upturned knife with a gunshot when she could have retreated safely.

How the New "Stand Your Ground" Law Changed the "Castle" Doctrine

Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense rules in several ways.

First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

So let's go back to Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.

Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.

Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.

Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.

It's Not True that the New Law Merely Aligns Florida with Other States

According to Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, the new law brings Florida into line with other states. "We're not breaking ground here. We're catching up," Baxley said.

That is probably more or less true when it comes to the legal standard governing use of deadly force outside the house. But it is very inaccurate when it comes to the legal standard governing killings inside of homes -- and, especially, in vehicles, which now count as a kind of "castle" under the "castle doctrine." Here, the new law has truly radical effects.

Why? Because the new law bulks up the old "castle" doctrine -- once a reasonable rule of law -- until it is a legal monstrosity: a legal Incredible Hulk.

Recall that now, at least according to the Senate Report, there is an irrebuttable presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home -- or, under the new law, a car -- is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. That means that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bob had no intent to physically harm Lisa, his estate will not be able to sue her.

It may, in fact, be the reality, that in almost all cases in which a citizen kills an unlawful intruder, or carjacker, it is because the unlawful intruder, or carjacker, was capable of killing, and willing to kill, the citizen first. (I suppose the "gentleman thief" no longer exists in Florida.) But there is at least a chance of serious miscarriages of justice.

Suppose that a doctor's drug addict brother breaks into his mansion to raid the medicine cabinet. Now, the doctor can kill his brother to ensure that he will be the sole heir to their wealthy parents' estate.

Or suppose a teacher upon entering his SUV, finds a student who has broken in so that he can deface the interior. Though the intent was clearly vandalism, and the boy has no record of violence, the irate teacher guns down the student. According to Florida, this would appear to be legal.

What can proponents say when examples like these are raised? It's hard to imagine. Perhaps they would claim that those who break the law by violating another's "castle" deserve what they get -- even if what they get is death.

The "Stand Your Ground" Law Says Property Is More Important than Life

In this respect, Florida has taken a wrong turn that no other state should emulate.

In effect, its law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.

The principle holding that life is more valuable than the defense of property is deeply embedded in our legal history. The Florida law contravenes this simple principle. (That is does so by hiding behind a legislative "presumption" that all burglars or car thieves are potential killers should not obscure that fact.)

The old version of the castle doctrine told homeowners that they could kill when they reasonably believed that their lives were in danger. Now the law tells average citizens they can kill when they reasonably believe that their homes or vehicles have been illegally and forcibly invaded.

That adds an additional wrinkle -- and an additional way innocents can be killed. Anyone can make a mistake in the heat of the moment, but the margin for error in the new law is unbearably large.

What if Bob is a panhandler who approaches Sue's car and touches it against her wishes? Perhaps it would be obvious to most observers that he had no intention of entering the car, but what if Sue panics and thinks he is a carjacker?

It is of no help to say that the law was not designed to permit her to use deadly force under those circumstances: after Bob is dead and Sue is facing criminal and civil penalties, the damage has already been done.

The only test of laws is their effect in the real world. The castle doctrine, until it was changed by Florida, was a practical compromise between a number of competing interests in life. It was a balance between the state's interest in allowing citizens to protect their own lives, and its interest in minimizing violence in the streets -- ranging from vigilantism to a too-quick trigger finger.

The new "Stand Your Ground" law is likely to produce a number of ugly real-world side effects. Its real purpose seems to be the capital punishment of property-criminals, regardless of whether their deaths help protect the lives of anyone else.

Furthermore, Florida's castle doctrine has now been expanded so that the test for self-defense covers far more circumstances and locations than before.

All in all, the room for error is much larger. In addition, the law sends a very confusing message to the citizens of Florida about when they can use lethal force with impunity.

If my prediction that this law will insulate certain home- or car-owners who kill without good reason to do so turns out to be correct, I hope the Florida legislature will have the courage to revisit this law and fix it. In the meantime, the NRA, flush with their victory in Florida, is lobbying to have the "Stand Your Ground" law adopted in other states, such as New York. Other states should reject the NRA's "help" when it comes to revising their self-defense laws.



of course I just HAD to pick a critic...but he explains the law...even if I do not aggree with his conclusions .


Originally Posted by Keruvalia
You mean the laws that state you can shoot someone for cutting you off on the freeway or looking at your wife funny?

No ... I don't like those at all. Law enforcement should not be placed in the hands of the citizenry. I do not condone vigilanteism.

because you get statements like this from those with no clue .

well, that kinda sucks. I wouldn't want to live in a country where I couldn't have a gun (yeah, I know there are people here who can't have them, but still I could if I wanted to)


Oops ... I overread your post :rolleyes:

Well ... let me tell you ... in the discussion that I've mentioned in my first post
I'm the bad boy, because I am backing private gun ownership ... at least in the States where it is kind of a tradition. Here in Germany ... I don't know.
People are not used to it and I think if we'd suddenly have laws like yours, most people wouldn't purchase weapons anyway ... this would be something for the evil people - what I want to say is: We are not used to it and the guns would be purchased by the wrong group of people.

Additionally many Germans are biased towards the USA, because they do not know better.
It's that crappy media thing.
It is not my opinion but there are enough people over here, who just think that the US Americans lack in education and behaviour, and therefore giving these supposedly uneducated people the possibility to own guns is a MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJOR threat to everything and everyone.

Don't evaluate this.
It's ridiculous enough, that they lump together 300 Million people ...
No need for a discussion on this topic ....
I think that these people are the real threat!

But what should I say ... you'll find these guys everywhere ...

Good morning America :)

Hi, HI.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a threat?


I don't think this law will actually make it more likely for me to be shot, but I do think it makes it more likely that if I were shot the perp would never see prison. In that sense, I do feel threatened.


Do you support the easing of the law?

No.


Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?

No.


Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

No.


Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.
Any time. :D

Don't evaluate this.
It's ridiculous enough, that they lump together 300 Million people ...
No need for a discussion on this topic ....
I think that these people are the real threat!

But what should I say ... you'll find these guys everywhere ...
true that.

That article you refer to Highland Island, would appear to take the law WAAAAAY out of context. All the law does is reinforce the idea that are person can defend themselves if violently attacked. If someone tries to car jack me or break into my house, I wouldn't have to worry about legal repercussions if I shoot them. If I am on the street and physically attacked in a life threatening manner, I'm allowed to respond with deadly force BEFORE trying to flee which would be likely twarted. I don't know how many states have passed this law, but it would only in the states that already issue concealed carry permits (something like 34). You must have a permit to carry a concealed pistol, which requires State approved training and a gov't background check. If you don't have a permit and you're carrying a pistol and use this law, you would go to jail.

The law DOES NOT PROTECT ANYONE who would shoot another individual because of an argument or disagreement. It only protects those that would be vicitims, of hostile/predatory attackers, from unneccessary persecution.

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread? I'm not likely to be mistaken for a thread. I have no clue what you're blathering about, edit your post and clarify.
Do you support the easing of the law? What law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?No.
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?Absolutely not.

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.

All populations are armed, unless they're just heads in jars.

That article you refer to Highland Island, would appear to take the law WAAAAAY out of context.
I think that, too. I already mentioned, that I find this report a bit too lurid.
Unfortunately this is typical for the German left wing media :mad:
And even more unfortunately many people are influenced by these papers, even if they are no left wing supporters.
In the end "Der Spiegel" is not supposed to be left but a rather neutral media ...


All the law does is reinforce the idea that are person can defend themselves if violently attacked. If someone tries to car jack me or break into my house, I wouldn't have to worry about legal repercussions if I shoot them. <snip>.
Bottle did express this in a short and striking sentence:
I don't think this law will actually make it more likely for me to be shot, but I do think it makes it more likely that if I were shot the perp would never see prison. In that sense, I do feel threatened.

And I think you both are right!
I don't thinkt this amendment or remake of the law will have the effect, that all the people are running out in the streets and shoot any available moving targets.

At least, as I said before, this is obviously the typical German (or maybe European) paranoia towards the US American citizens. Which is a piece of impudence, mildly said!!!!!

It's mostly about the jurisdiction but definitely not about some wild half-animalized human beings who are not able to deliberate about the worth of another living existence.

Sometimes I'm really ashamed of my German/European fellows, who are not able to accept, that you are used to gun ownership for such a long time!

I'm not likely to be mistaken for a thread. I have no clue what you're blathering about, edit your post and clarify. What law?
We already clarified that.
But of course you are right, I was not precisely enough when opening this thread. Backround for this was, that I was referring to a report in a German media, which did not use the original English name of the law. But I pointed it out only a little bit later in this thread.
Anyway .. thanks for your answer and your effort to stay ontopic without knowing what law exactly I meant.
Especially your last answer:
All populations are armed, unless they're just heads in jars.
shows the discrepancy of people who are allowed to bear weaponry and the people who don't. And I'm with you! But, as I found out meanwhile, discussing this topic is almost the same as discussing religion.

Interesting as well is your answer to my question:
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

Your answer was: Absolutely no!

I think most people here in Europe wouldn't understand.
We are so close, culturally spoken, and so far away from each other at the same time.
Which is anything but bad, because this shows the diversity of opinions in a culture that's supposed to be the same.
Shallow at least ...


I'm off now, but feel free to reply anyway. I'll be back in about 12 or 13 hours :)

I think that, too. I already mentioned, that I find this report a bit too lurid.
Unfortunately this is typical for the German left wing media :mad:
And even more unfortunately many people are influenced by these papers, even if they are no left wing supporters.
In the end "Der Spiegel" is not supposed to be left but a rather neutral media ...
lol, ALL media is supposed to be neutral media. A particular media outlet's bias is determined by one's own position on the political spectrum.


Bottle did express this in a short and striking sentence:


And I think you both are right!
I don't thinkt this amendment or remake of the law will have the effect, that all the people are running out in the streets and shoot any available moving targets.

At least, as I said before, this is obviously the typical German (or maybe European) paranoia towards the US American citizens. Which is a piece of impudence, mildly said!!!!!

It's mostly about the jurisdiction but definitely not about some wild half-animalized human beings who are not able to deliberate about the worth of another living existence.

Sometimes I'm really ashamed of my German/European fellows, who are not able to accept, that you are used to gun ownership for such a long time!
Bottles' statement was not exactly correct. The only reason someone who shot Bottle and NOT see the inside of a prison, is if that person felt immediate threat to his/her life from Bottle. Then they would not be charged with a crime. Bottle makes it seem that any random joe could shoot him/her for any reason and get away with it. That's just nonsense.

Bottles' statement was not exactly correct. The only reason someone who shot Bottle and NOT see the inside of a prison, is if that person felt immediate threat to his/her life from Bottle. Then they would not be charged with a crime. Bottle makes it seem that any random joe could shoot him/her for any reason and get away with it. That's just nonsense.


And it's exactly what the various banninators (not Bottle) want you to believe. They want people to believe that these laws will turn things into a Monty Python sketch. It's the same type of misinformation (ie blatant lying) that they used when they renamed semi-auto weapons to sound like fully-auto weapons and then showed pictures of fully-auto weapons being used.

And it's exactly what the various banninators (not Bottle) want you to believe. They want people to believe that these laws will turn things into a Monty Python sketch. It's the same type of misinformation (ie blatant lying) that they used when they renamed semi-auto weapons to sound like fully-auto weapons and then showed pictures of fully-auto weapons being used.
<<off topic post warning>>
Watched an episode of mythbusters last night, where they busted the myth of shooting a bullet straight up in the air coming back down with lethal force.
They used an M-1 garand for some of the testing, and at one point, called it an assault rifle. :rolleyes:

<<off topic post warning>>
Watched an episode of mythbusters last night, where they busted the myth of shooting a bullet straight up in the air coming back down with lethal force.
They used an M-1 garand for some of the testing, and at one point, called it an assault rifle. :rolleyes:

They bought that for the shark episode. IIRC, they called it an "assault rifle" then too. I'm surprised that they actually know little about firearms. The guy w/ the beret was surprised that a 30-06 round could penetrate 2" of aluminum.

No, it was Adam that was surprised it penetrated the tank, not Jamie. And frankly, the term "assault rifle" is debatable when it comes to applying to guns anyway. What really qualfies as an assault rifle? From my understanding, any rifle is used to assault others ANYWAY, so theoretically you could apply the term to all rifles.

As for the current new law: I'm always in favor of arming the populace. I, in fact, would be in full support of a REQUIRED gun carry law. I, however, will NEVER support vigilante laws that allow to go randomly shooting people for looking at you funny. Self-defense, yes. In such instances, one should shoot to injure, not kill. It's not that hard to hit someone in the leg or arm rather than in the torso or head. Really. You just need to take classes in aiming and whatnot.

Really? Never heard about it. Of course there are some people owning guns legally, but that's only for a minority like the guys in shooting clubs.
And hunters/forest rangers of course.

I lived in Hesse for a couple of years, and I met a couple of gun owners. My girlfriend's dad had a license and owned a number of guns, as did a friend of his. They were quite avid hunters. From what I gathered there aren't many gun owners in Germany, but the ones that have guns tend to have quite a few of them.

Bottles' statement was not exactly correct. The only reason someone who shot Bottle and NOT see the inside of a prison, is if that person felt immediate threat to his/her life from Bottle. Then they would not be charged with a crime. Bottle makes it seem that any random joe could shoot him/her for any reason and get away with it. That's just nonsense.
Bottle's statement did no such thing. Indeed, you yourself just re-stated my point and confirmed that it was an accurate statement on my part:

I don't feel that this kind of law increases the likelihood that somebody will shoot me. I feel that they increase the likelihood that somebody who shoots me will not go to jail. You agree with me that these laws expand the potential defense for somebody who chooses to shoot me. Thus, I am correct that these laws increase the chance that my shooter would avoid serving time for shooting me. Whether or not the person is JUSTIFIED in feeling threatened is beside the point (in terms of what I was saying).

These laws don't say that "any random joe can shoot me for any reason and get away with it." What they say is that any random Joe who shoots me could justify his actions by saying that he felt so threatened that he needed to shoot me.

In other words, it's already possible for Joe to shoot me for any reason at all, it's just that Joe has a limited number of excuses he can give when the cops show up. These laws provide one more excuse that might hold up in court.

Bottle's statement did no such thing. Indeed, you yourself just re-stated my point and confirmed that it was an accurate statement on my part:

I don't feel that this kind of law increases the likelihood that somebody will shoot me. I feel that they increase the likelihood that somebody who shoots me will not go to jail. You agree with me that these laws expand the potential defense for somebody who chooses to shoot me. Thus, I am correct that these laws increase the chance that my shooter would avoid serving time for shooting me. Whether or not the person is JUSTIFIED in feeling threatened is beside the point (in terms of what I was saying).

These laws don't say that "any random joe can shoot me for any reason and get away with it." What they say is that any random Joe who shoots me could justify his actions by saying that he felt so threatened that he needed to shoot me.

In other words, it's already possible for Joe to shoot me for any reason at all, it's just that Joe has a limited number of excuses he can give when the cops show up. These laws provide one more excuse that might hold up in court.


They still have to prove that you were an imminent lethal threat, or an imminent threat of severe bodily injury. Which is the crux of the biscuit in self-defense cases.

The only difference is that if they do shoot, they don't have to run away first. They can stand their ground.

It's not an additional excuse, and doesn't really change the self-defense case. It does keep you out of trouble if the defending shooter stood there and didn't run away.

There are cases where someone was in imminent lethal danger, and fired in defense, and killed the dangerous party, but the firer went to jail for murder because they didn't run away.

In some states, even if someone is killing your children in your home, you still have to run - and leave your children to their fate.

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.nope, won't affect me one bit.

people who know me know how much of a threat I am (none)
the number of Guns I own shows the threat I pose (none)
and my manner is such that I've yet to find anyone who feels threatened by me... even when I wanna be threatening...

Hell no! I am from glorius California. Actors get elected governor, electric companies laugh on how "we just screwed California". Mayors of major cities often buck the US Constitution and start handing out marriage licenses for a price, turn around and hide behind the same document along with their accomplices.

Here a "fixer" sells for a million USDs, and where uniouns are vastly more powerful and influential than the corporations which they "defend" against. Government employees [the term "civil servant" doesn't apply anymore] are completely uniounized and often go on TV either complaining about not having enough money, got their paycheck cut, and in the same breath talk about the state deficit.

A silly law about having guns won't ring a bell here. In LA they will shoot each other regardless, if they can murder having a wimpy thing like "no permit" is just going to cause the ganster to wave at the cop, with one finger.

So really no-

Okay, I understand now. Odd that I've heard nothing about this. Having just earned my pistol permit, I keep track of such things. I know that Florida recently passed some impressive gun legislature, but I don't know specifics.

I know if someone in Florida breaks in ur house (appearing dangerous), you can pump that sucka fulla lead after u tell him u will 3 times.

Sorry... had to put it that way... (it is kinda scary... I think it applies to property too[wishes for a scared face])

From the top:
Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread? NODo you support the easing of the law?YesDo you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?No and NoCould you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?No

I don't give a crap. I'm not old enough to buy a gun.

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.

It's never OK to shoot over minor things.

I think what you are getting at is whether or not it's OK to shoot someone unarmed breaking into a home, or one who is threatening you physically in public. Both are 'good shoot' scenarios. A person breaking into a home is there to cause harm, and a person who is unarmed attacking an armed person means they can get control of the weapon, and that they are nuts.

Nope, I'm not worried. People who CCW legally are MORE law abiding than the general public, and are INFORMED on when/when not to shoot.

They still have to prove that you were an imminent lethal threat, or an imminent threat of severe bodily injury. Which is the crux of the biscuit in self-defense cases.

My understanding was that they have to prove that they sincerely believed I was an imminent lethal threat. Is that true, or have I been misinformed?


The only difference is that if they do shoot, they don't have to run away first. They can stand their ground.

It's not an additional excuse, and doesn't really change the self-defense case. It does keep you out of trouble if the defending shooter stood there and didn't run away.

There are cases where someone was in imminent lethal danger, and fired in defense, and killed the dangerous party, but the firer went to jail for murder because they didn't run away.

In some states, even if someone is killing your children in your home, you still have to run - and leave your children to their fate.
All that just sounds bonkers to me...what difference does it make if you run or not? Some people freeze up with fear if they are in imminent danger, so are we to assume that such people aren't really in danger because they didn't run? That's just goofy.

The law doesnt sound that influential, and I dont think that peoples behavior is at all going to be affected by the changes. Its not like its anything more than a technicality, if someone did break into your home and attempt to rape your wife before this law, Im sure you wouldnt be having a debate in your head about the most legal way to react. exact wordings of the law arent really a consideration in an emergency- you do what you need to survive.

I can understand a German newspaper misinterpreting it. Most of Europe doesnt seem to embrace widespread private private gun-ownership, but that not really a problem, Its just our culture. However, this culture likely grew out of the fact that we have a federally established right to own a gun, something europe doesnt share.

The law doesnt sound that influential, and I dont think that peoples behavior is at all going to be affected by the changes. Its not like its anything more than a technicality, if someone did break into your home and attempt to rape your wife before this law, Im sure you wouldnt be having a debate in your head about the most legal way to react. exact wordings of the law arent really a consideration in an emergency- you do what you need to survive.

I can understand a German newspaper misinterpreting it. Most of Europe doesnt seem to embrace widespread private private gun-ownership, but that not really a problem, Its just our culture. However, this culture likely grew out of the fact that we have a federally established right to own a gun, something europe doesnt share.

If someone broke into your house and you shot them, they or their family could SUE you. That's stupid, yes, and it's also what the new law protects against. It also prevents the police from treating you as a criminal. Even better.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?

Not in the least. DK explained the "feels you are a threat" thing earlier, IIRC.

Do you support the easing of the law?

By easing do you mean letting people shoot other people for less? Not really, no.

Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?

Yes and no. If by serious purposes you mean self or home defence. I used military weapons for those purposes, but those were military situations.

Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

Not in my country. If I was staying in a foreign country I can understand that their culture doesn't allow for such things. However, in my country, and especially my state I would find such a law intolerable.

If someone broke into your house and you shot them, they or their family could SUE you. That's stupid, yes, and it's also what the new law protects against. It also prevents the police from treating you as a criminal. Even better.

Im just saying that peoples behavior wont really change. Sue you or not, You'd beat/shoot/stab anyone trying to rape your wife, even with the old law in effect...wouldnt you?

Well, I'm an American living in Australia. It makes for an interesting juxtaposition of attitudes and realities.

The odd thing in this case is that Western Australia has a variation on the "Castle Doctrine", but basically does not permit private handgun ownership (there are a very few exceptions, but very few).

It makes for a kind of schizophrenic system - you can defend yourself, but you're denied the tools to do so...

It seems to me that Florida is being reasonably sensible. If they're trying to match up to the same rough standard as their neighbours, I would expect similar results.

As to whether it would make me feel safer or less safe..? I think I would prefer to be able to defend myself. I seriously doubt anyone else will.

There's a law that lets people carry guns and use it for basically no reason? Holy shit.

...well, it wasn't stopping people much BEFORE the law, so...oh well. I pretty much assume I'll be shot by accident one day anyway.

Its interesting..the bar I shoot pool in was held up tonight...my weapon and all of the guys I shoot pool with were in our cars....the bartender shot the one fellow in the face...his buddy missed the the bartender with a shotgun blast and took off...we all ducked and covered...


If we would have all been armed there would have been at least two dead robbers....and I hate to say it but a few of us would have been shot full of holes...


guns and bars dont mix...


friggin cops and detectives took 20 minutes to get there...the dead guy was on the floor with the firemen taking care of him and the ambulence also came before the cops ...WTF ????


Who's crazy enough to try to rob a "cop "bar anyway ?

not for anything but we kinda feel safe because we get so many off duty guys ..

shotguns inside are very fucking loud .

I look at it this way when China (or aliens) trys to take over the world we'll be the only country with a very good resistance movement, if we haven't all killed eachother by then.
In other news nobody fuckin told me! How the hell did you hear about it Germany but the media didn't bother to tell anyone in America. Mein Gott...

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?


1. Yes
2. Clarify
3. No; Guns are for cheaters
4. Hell No

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.


My answers to your questions, in order:

No
Yes
Yes, No
No

Hope that's helped. :D

Good morning America :)

having had a discussion yesterday about the new gun control law, which allows the gun owner to use his weapon officially now for minor offenses, me and some other guys were wondering how the American public is feeling about this new enactment.
It’s applied now in 8 states IIRC and there are some more supposed to subscribe to this law.

After we are not used to this matter of fact at all, we all were really interested in first hand informations.

Do you personally feel threatened by the fact, that one could use his weapon only because he/she means that you are a thread?
Do you support the easing of the law?
Do you own a gun yourself and did you ever use it for serious purposes?
Could you live with a law that would outlaw gun ownership for everyone and only allows guns in the hands of police and army?

I noticed that here in Germany, where it is forbidden to own guns, most people have problems to understand the sense of an armed population and, yes, most people here would be afraid if we’d have a law that allows gun ownership.

I also pointed out that in Switzerland the people also have their weapons but nobody picked that out as a central theme …

Would be great if some of you US-NSers will drop some lines and tell us your opinion.

Thanks :)

H.I.


My answers to your questions, in order:

No
Yes
Yes, No
No

Hope that's helped. :D

Its interesting..the bar I shoot pool in was held up tonight...my weapon and all of the guys I shoot pool with were in our cars....the bartender shot the one fellow in the face...his buddy missed the the bartender with a shotgun blast and took off...we all ducked and covered...


If we would have all been armed there would have been at least two dead robbers....and I hate to say it but a few of us would have been shot full of holes...


guns and bars dont mix...


friggin cops and detectives took 20 minutes to get there...the dead guy was on the floor with the firemen taking care of him and the ambulence also came before the cops ...WTF ????


Who's crazy enough to try to rob a "cop "bar anyway ?

not for anything but we kinda feel safe because we get so many off duty guys ..

shotguns inside are very fucking loud .

OMG ! Sorry to hear that! Hope you're well after that!
This is the other side of the story, obviously.
However, things like that happened in "gun-ban-countries" too.
I remind of this young boy (a pupil), who went into his school in Erfurt/Germany and shot several pupils and also a teacher IIRC. This is about two years ago ... maybe this was reported outside Germany as well ....

How the hell did you hear about it Germany but the media didn't bother to tell anyone in America. Mein Gott...


Well ... maybe because we live in a democracy here? :D

Just joking ... ;)

I think it is, because our media is very interested in any stories concerning the US. And if you take the wrong media, you'll have a little bit US-bashing additionally.

If you or anyone else is interested in how biased some German medias are, check out this link:
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/

But I want to point out, that this is not the standard. There are some papers who are anti-US ordinarily. But only a minority of people are getting their informations from only one source.

My answers to your questions, in order:

No
Yes
Yes, No
No

Hope that's helped. :D

It was a bit hard to assign your answers to my questions, but I think I figured it out :)

Thanks, GM!

I'm off now, have a fab weekend, all!

HI.