Packing

[GSM CEO]

Yes its justifiable use of force if you shoot someone in a neutralising position, allowing you to escape.

But if you shoot them in the head..don't drop the soap

 

[hillbillybob]

Thou shall not kill.

What a BS. Come on sissies, killing can be neat! I'm sure lots of you have done it in a computer game, but I can assure you, it's much more thrilling in reality! Talk about adrenaline rush! And the graphical effects are so much better: blood gushing and dripping, limbs twitching, muscles tearing. With that in mind, I recommend a shotgun. To you, your loved ones and everyone who cares about safety. Besides, it's the only way to make sure that those annoying unknown persons won't dare to come to your backyard more than once. You know these "Sorry, I seem to be lost, could you tell me..." or "My car broke down and...". Yeah right punk, wrong backyard... Let's make the world a safer place.

Now your just being preposterous. If they have a valid reason, hey fine, im always happy to help a fellow person. I wouldn't blow someone away for walking up to me. I will blow someone away for pulling a knife on me. One thing I will say, is unless that state's laws are extremely liberal, deadly force in self defense generally will not wind up in you going to jail.

 

[hilowe]

Also keep in mind...If you do shoot someone in ''self defence'' and you do kill them, you will still goto prison (depending on how your DA reacts)

If it's in self-defense (meaning you reacted to a situation where you felt you are in imminent peril), you will not go to prison. It's called "justifiable use of force", and most states (if your actions are justifiable) give criminal and civil immunity to the defender.

Kubel's got it right.

Now, I'm not sure about conceal carry on the streets, but I do know a little bit about home invasion laws in Nebraska.

In Nebraska you have to "feel threatened" to use deadly force, meaning you see them with a knife or gun, and think they are intending to do harm to you or your family. You cannot shoot them from behind (ie as they are on their way out the door with your belongings).

One more rule, and this is the one that I hate, but if you shoot them in your house, and the person can drag him/herself outside, you can still be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Kubel]

Yes its justifiable use of force if you shoot someone in a neutralising position, allowing you to escape.

But if you shoot them in the head..don't drop the soap

Not true in Michigan. May be true where you live, but here we can use deadly force if we believe we are in danger of being killed or raped. Michigan has a Castle Doctrine (has been clarified since 2006) which provides immunity (both criminal and civil) as long as we are in a place where we are legally allowed to be in. If I started busting caps in a school zone, I would be prosecuted, because schools are no-carry zones. But if I'm in my home or in my car or out walking on a sidewalk, and I'm in danger of death or rape (or someone else is), I can take the person out.

An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act and who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses that deadly force or force other than deadly force commits no crime in using thatdeadly force or force other than deadly force.

If a prosecutor believes that an individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force that is unjustified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act, the prosecutor may charge the individual with a crime arising from that use of deadly force or force other than deadly force and shall present evidence to the judge or magistrate at the time of warrant issuance, at the time of any preliminary examination, and at the time of any trial establishing that the individual's actions were not justified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act.

 

[GSM CEO]

Fair enough then...I suppose it depends on what actually happens as well....

 

[Kubel]

A lot of states do have laws similar to what you described, where they are very self-defense unfriendly. I'm just glad I don't live there .

 

[hillbillybob]

Kansas passed a Conceal-carry law about a year ago, and so far really nothing has come of it. You have to take a day long course and pass a test, both shooting and written in which you have to show competency with handling your weapon, the laws and by-laws, and you do have to have a certain level of accuracy, I believe it's 80% to pass. Still by and by, there are still no carry zones. Schools for sure, most government offices, and I can't remember the rest. However, we do have an open carry policy, but again it's not real common. You see it more during hunting season, in which hunters will carry sidearms and their long guns. You did bring up a valid point though, and it boils down to this...Know the laws of your state.

 

[LoTeX]

As fun as the killing is, there's just one minor negative aspect: it's kind of a permanent "solution". So if there's an accident or misunderstanding or something like that, you can't just say "Sorry buddy, didn't realize it was a comb you were holding in your hand. I though it was a knife, how silly of me, eh? Now let's put that brain mass back to your head and pretend nothing happened".

I recon there's an easy fix (in theory). Let's swap all the guns to stun guns or alike. Surely in this state of modern technology those kind of weapons could be made as easy (but maybe not as fun) to use as real, lethal guns. So defending something would still work, just stun the attacker and perhaps tie him/her up and call the cops. No need to waste a whole life here. Now this would also prevent all the accidental killings and school massacres etc. So why an earth are we still using guns? Lemme guess. Money and masculinity. Of course there are huge markets in weapon and ammo sales & production, so it's quite clear that those parties wouldn't like losing most of their business. And then there's masculinity. There wouldn't be any more manly bragging about recoils, penetrating powers etc. Amount of volts or density of a rubber bullet isn't quite the same, I suppose. IMFHO, we could sacrifice some of our money & masculinity in order to save a vast number of lives, annually.

 

[StylinGolfShoes]

I plan to go to college and Med School where I definitely can't have a weapon.
But as soon as I move to SC after education I plan to carry a weapon everywhere, I never want to be in a Situatuion where I can't protect myself and my family.

Also I plan to have 9-10 rifles/shotguns and 3-4 pistols in my house for hunting and home defense.

This is the gun I will buy when I turn 18. Show Product Details

 

[hillbillybob]

As fun as the killing is, there's just one minor negative aspect: it's kind of a permanent "solution". So if there's an accident or misunderstanding or something like that, you can't just say "Sorry buddy, didn't realize it was a comb you were holding in your hand. I though it was a knife, how silly of me, eh? Now let's put that brain mass back to your head and pretend nothing happened".

I recon there's an easy fix (in theory). Let's swap all the guns to stun guns or alike. Surely in this state of modern technology those kind of weapons could be made as easy (but maybe not as fun) to use as real, lethal guns. So defending something would still work, just stun the attacker and perhaps tie him/her up and call the cops. No need to waste a whole life here. Now this would also prevent all the accidental killings and school massacres etc. So why an earth are we still using guns? Lemme guess. Money and masculinity. Of course there are huge markets in weapon and ammo sales & production, so it's quite clear that those parties wouldn't like losing most of their business. And then there's masculinity. There wouldn't be any more manly bragging about recoils, penetrating powers etc. Amount of volts or density of a rubber bullet isn't quite the same, I suppose. IMFHO, we could sacrifice some of our money & masculinity in order to save a vast number of lives, annually.

It's not an issue of money &/|| masculinity, it's more of whether or not that person will stop. I've absorbed a lot of voltage, and no paltry less than lethal civilian stun gun is going to stop me. Police tasers do a fine job, but civilians cant have that, at least not in Oklahoma and Kansas. No, if you made the decision to harm me or my family, then a permanant solution is required. A .45 slug to the head is about fitting. Granted that is my opinion, and I am not saying that your solution doesn't have merit in some cases, but the majority of cases require something a little more final. IMO, it all boils down to consequences for your actions, and owning up to the responsibility. A choice was made, and it forced my hand. Pretty cut and dry to me.