Texas at it again

[Asysin2leads]

First of all, Mike, I'm not a gun prohibitionist. I'm just against gun proliferation. As I said before, I don't have a problem with individual gun ownership, its when we start talking about using it on your day to day person and self defense and right to stand your ground that I start having a problem with.

Yes, I can think of many situations where a legally carried gun could have made a difference. Just look at 9/11. That doesn't mean I'm for the right of passengers to carry firearms aboard a plane, though. I guess I'd rather have 100 innocent, law abiding citizens on their way to work mugged than one innocent person shot to death. I base my opinion on my knowledge of not only firearms and the law, but also human nature.

Now I have a scenario for anyone with a concealed weapon permit who routinely carries. Lets say you're at Home Depot. You have your gun on you. You hear a commotion in the next aisle, and see a man screaming and yelling, holding a knife and swinging it at others. Several people come very close to being cut. You live in a state with the whole you don't need to retreat thing. What do you do?

[hfdff422]

Why should you retreat? Someone is endagering the lives of others through an act of criminality. In Indiana, that constitutes the use of deadly force or at the very least, the threat of.

35-41-3-2 Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

( A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in time of great moral crisis."

— Dante Alighieri

[Michael]

So assess the amount of risk there is in your life and decide for yourself whether it would be a good idea to have a gun.

nbsp, it seems to me that Dust elegantly captured the condition your suggestion requires. In order for your suggestion to work as an advisory statement, individuals must first have a choice to exercise.

The problem is, that sentence only works as an advisory statement and will never be workable as legal code, because

1. It assumes that all people are reasonable. (Whereas I used it in addressing Michael and I'm relatively certain that he's a reasonable person.)

2. It does not address when and where you are allowed to use your gun, which is the subject on which this thread was started and on which legislation was recently passed.

I don't see how it assumes all people are reasonable. Rather, it seems to me that if all people were assumed to be reasonable, there would be no concern about preventing crime, because no crime would occur.

As to when and how you are allowed to use your gun, I may have missed that controversy. I thought the debate was between permitting or forbidding individuals to use guns to defend themselves against violent attacks or their credible threat.

Concerning your questions about other emergency equipment, I would be very happy to be around safety-minded people and resources, so long as they don't intrude on my liberty. I carry a fire-extinguisher in my car and keep one in my home. Seatbelts, smoke-detectors, CO-detectors, fire-escapes, airport AEDs, and stand-by ambulances at large gatherings all seem to me like good ideas, as do healthy eating and exercising. I'm not quite sure what the downside is if someone thinks it prudent to carry an epi-pen, a parachute, or wear suspenders in addition to his belt. I know someone who was able to escape a burning building and rescue his girlfriend in the process only because, as a competitive martial artist, he was outstandingly physically fit. In another instance, I saw the swiftness of a seasoned sprinter summoning a police officer probably save the life of a man about to be lynched. Another friend carries the Bill of Rights in his pocket, perhaps in case he is ever arrested. The reason I (probably) don't know many people who are well equipped for emergencies is, I think, habit and custom, as well as prioritizing. I don't see how the fact that most people prefer to spend time doing other things than preparing for emergencies means there's something wrong with the others. But I may have missed your point.

[Michael]

I don't have a problem with individual gun ownership, its when we start talking about using it on your day to day person and self defense and right to stand your ground that I start having a problem with.

I'm sorry, I don't follow when you find it a problem and when not.

I guess I'd rather have 100 innocent, law abiding citizens on their way to work mugged than one innocent person shot to death.

Hmm... I'm trying that on for size and find it difficult. On 9/11 it was 3000 innocent, law-abiding citizens; does the principle stand?

Lets say you're at Home Depot. You have your gun on you. You hear a commotion in the next aisle, and see a man screaming and yelling, holding a knife and swinging it at others. Several people come very close to being cut. You live in a state with the whole you don't need to retreat thing. What do you do?

Before or after he's advanced on your toddler? [No sarcasm intended.]

[Scaramedic]

First off let me say I agree with A2L when it comes to gun proliferation, I do not want to see everyone carrying a weapon. I firmly believe that there should be controls on guns. Yet I do believe in the rights of decent, intelligent, law abiding citizens to have sidearms to protect themselves, though I not thrilled with the idea of Joe Blow with a side arm it is a right in this country. If we could do away with all guns I would be happy, but like we said before it's not going to happen.

As far as the Home Depot scenario goes if I was armed in that scenario I would fire a double tap to the chest. Plain and simple, like I have said before I come from a cop family, a knife is deadly force and should be answered with deadly force. I know you well enough A2L that you are going top come back with how someone in that situation disarmed the suspect with a door knob set or something. That's great but they risked their lives and everyones elses at that point and I don't belive it was worth it.

Peace,

Marty

[Michael]

Or it was staged for a student-film project?

[nbsp]

nbsp, it seems to me that Dust elegantly captured the condition your suggestion requires. In order for your suggestion to work as an advisory statement, individuals must first have a choice to exercise.

Right. And by saying that to you I was assuming you personally had that choice.

I don't see how it assumes all people are reasonable. Rather, it seems to me that if all people were assumed to be reasonable, there would be no concern about preventing crime, because no crime would occur.

I was using the word "reasonable" to mean people that are able to accurately assess risk and make an educated decision on whether or not it is a good idea to own a gun. The point was that, you can't just have "decide for yourself" as a rule (or, law,) for who should and shouldn't have a gun, because not everybody is reasonable enough to make a correct decision. This is why we have gun control.

Just like the statement "assess your risk and decide for yourself whether it is a good idea to be driving at the moment". This would never pass into law, because if people were really that reasonable, we wouldn't have kids killing themselves by drunk driving or people driving too fast in bad weather. So, we have traffic laws.

Concerning your questions about other emergency equipment, I would be very happy to be around safety-minded people and resources, so long as they don't intrude on my liberty. I carry a fire-extinguisher in my car and keep one in my home. Seatbelts, smoke-detectors, CO-detectors, fire-escapes, airport AEDs, and stand-by ambulances at large gatherings all seem to me like good ideas, as do healthy eating and exercising. I'm not quite sure what the downside is if someone thinks it prudent to carry an epi-pen, a parachute, or wear suspenders in addition to his belt. I know someone who was able to escape a burning building and rescue his girlfriend in the process only because, as a competitive martial artist, he was outstandingly physically fit. In another instance, I saw the swiftness of a seasoned sprinter summoning a police officer probably save the life of a man about to be lynched. Another friend carries the Bill of Rights in his pocket, perhaps in case he is ever arrested. The reason I (probably) don't know many people who are well equipped for emergencies is, I think, habit and custom, as well as prioritizing. I don't see how the fact that most people prefer to spend time doing other things than preparing for emergencies means there's something wrong with the others. But I may have missed your point.

And the point was, while there are so many things for which there are concievable situations where these emergency items would become necessary, it would be rather strange to forgo all of the others, and then state that the reason you carry a gun is for emergency situations.

[Michael]

Right. And by saying that to you I was assuming you personally had that choice.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying, and I appreciate your persistence.

Since I personally have that choice only in jurisdictions in which I am not forbidden to use a gun, I don't understand what you are suggesting except that I should have that choice, ie, that I should not be prohibited from using a gun.

I was using the word "reasonable" to mean people that are able to accurately assess risk and make an educated decision on whether or not it is a good idea to own a gun. The point was that, you can't just have "decide for yourself" as a rule (or, law,) for who should and shouldn't have a gun, because not everybody is reasonable enough to make a correct decision. This is why we have gun control.

Just like the statement "assess your risk and decide for yourself whether it is a good idea to be driving at the moment". This would never pass into law, because if people were really that reasonable, we wouldn't have kids killing themselves by drunk driving or people driving too fast in bad weather. So, we have traffic laws.

But unlike with guns, the default position everywhere is that everyone gets to drive until/unless their unsafe driving forfeits the confidence of the community represented by a government agency. We assume people drive reasonably until they show otherwise; we don't make them prove a special need for a car. Unlike with guns, the burden of proof is on the government to show that a motorist is untrustworthy.

And the point was, while there are so many things for which there are conceivable situations where these emergency items would become necessary, it would be rather strange to forgo all of the others, and then state that the reason you carry a gun is for emergency situations.

Well, people routinely prioritize according to less than perfectly rational criteria: Seatbelt-wearers smoke, intelligent people procrastinate, and I understand teeth-decaying beverages devoid of nutritional value are not only in demand, but that a free people even willingly pays for the privilege of consuming them. Smoking and unrestrained driving used to be the norm, voluntary ingestion of soda pop may be something future generations will puzzle over, and I look forward to the day someone has to remind me that I ever procrastinated. Habit and custom are often stronger forces than reason.

But even aside from preference and habit, the emergency use of a gun requires a response measured in seconds rather than the minutes or hours that external agents require to respond, and failing to act instantly to a situation that warrants shooting means, by definition, that the alternative is a predictable, and possibly preventable, innocent slaughter.

[Asysin2leads]

First off let me say I agree with A2L when it comes to gun proliferation, I do not want to see everyone carrying a weapon. I firmly believe that there should be controls on guns. Yet I do believe in the rights of decent, intelligent, law abiding citizens to have sidearms to protect themselves, though I not thrilled with the idea of Joe Blow with a side arm it is a right in this country. If we could do away with all guns I would be happy, but like we said before it's not going to happen.

As far as the Home Depot scenario goes if I was armed in that scenario I would fire a double tap to the chest. Plain and simple, like I have said before I come from a cop family, a knife is deadly force and should be answered with deadly force. I know you well enough A2L that you are going top come back with how someone in that situation disarmed the suspect with a door knob set or something. That's great but they risked their lives and everyones elses at that point and I don't belive it was worth it.

Peace,

Marty

Okay, so the general consensus here is he is swinging a knife, shoot him. Double tap to the chest. Completely justified. Boom. Dead. End of story.

Now lets back up. Lets say you retreated. Walked out of the store with everyone else. Then the police came and subdued him with beanbags. Then they found out his blood sugar was 20. Oooops, that crazed man swinging a knife was really just a hypoglycemic who skipped a meal. In this case, retreating was the right thing to do. I didn't say he was advancing on you, I said he was yelling and swinging a knife. You were the one who advanced on him, and now you just killed a guy because he skipped a meal. This is exactly why I am against these whole right to stand your ground BS laws, because they leave people dead. Nice shot though, I'll tell his wife and kids how well you grouped the bullets. Double "tap" to the chest, oh, wow, that is so cool. Stop watching CSI Miami.

Oh, and just one more thing. Lets say that during this disturbance, after you have your gun out, I come around the corner. Up until this point I had my headphones on so I was unaware of what was happening. All I know is everyone is screaming about something in Aisle 3. Now I'm also armed. I come around, and I see you, pointing a gun at I'm not sure who. Will I be justified after I put a few rounds through your vital organs? When you yourself are laying on the ground, bleeding to death, will you forgive me?

[chbare]

Asysin2leads, if possible, I would have left the area with the other people. If he was just swinging a knife around and everybody was able to safely leave, then I would have let the police deal with the person. Please note that I want to emphasize that I will try to leave if possible. However, I have not changed my stance.

Take care,

chbare.