Still want to play slippery slope, eh?

I would use deadly force in a situation in which the conditions in the cited law were met. Good thing you don't carry, since you aren't interested in the law. But fact that you could conflate a citiation of the law on Justification with Clinton's pathetic equivocation verges on tragic.

If you don't think you could use a firearm, then you're absolutely right not to carry. And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don't just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point.

Did you actually have a point?

Does US law permits civillians to kill another person without any repercussions?

And please define the situation.

I'm actually not sure which worries me more, having one and not using it or having one and using it...

It's state, not federal law, so you are welcome to look up the justification law in all 50 states. For all intents and purposes, the United States actually functions like 50 little independent countries, each with its own laws.

It just amazes me how liberals will hold forth on this issue without actually being willing to read the law. Pennsylvania's justification law is typical amongst the "shall-issue" states; I posted a link to it earlier.

Yes. If you are protecting your life or anothers. It is very simple.

Also, you do not think, you just do or do not... you pull your weapon and fire.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is considerably larger than a borough. It has it's own constitution, a population of about 13 million people, and a land area roughly twice that of Ireland. Its laws are important to me since they're the ones I live under and will observe.

If you're disintrested, because you live in a country where you're not allowed to defend yourself with anything but a cellphone, you're invited to move along quietly.

Well, you *do* think. But you likely will not have time to think much.

Ok, you think "There is my target".

Hopefully you started that thought with "That *is* a target", and followed it with "There's clear space behind."

Scenarios
 

That would be weird. What a great scenario. "Who are you? What do you want?" And he would just walk around, open the silverware drawer, close it, maybe hurrumph a few times, but never say anything. That would be truly odd. It would make a great reality TV show too. What would people do? How would they react? "Would you like a glass of water or something?" Maybe you could "kill him with kindness." Maybe watch a movie together?


You clearly meant to say rhubarb, not re-barb. Rhubarb is a poisonous plant, so I can understand your apprehension. If not cooked properly, one could die.:yeldead:

It just amazes me how conservatives think that because the law states such-and-such, that such-and-such will actually happen. Don't you have a gun for situations occur outside of the law? Aren't there going to be situations that are ambiguous in terms of the law? Are there situations where your judgement and actions are not consistent with the law? Do you wear your republinders so close to your head that these possibilities don't even occur to you?

Of course those situations exist. But she has already acknowledged that she's not going to play the "what if" game--both because of the futility of such a thing, as well as the potential legal complications if she ever were to have to shoot someone and this messageboard somehow got entered into evidence.