I'm sure there are! Boatloads. Citing Lott, I think I'll try to find something less (pardon the pun) loaded. I will avoid Brady as well, and seek something from the law enforcement /public health community. It may take me a few ticks, as I am actually supposed to be working now.

Once again, thanks for kindly extending such uncertainty to the thoughtful criminals on my behalf. I'm sure, because they know you are out there with your heat, they're rattled and logically more reluctant to be bad now! Whew!

No, you didn't. That's a non-answer. Tell me how you would react in those scenarios.

I want to know how Maggie would react, not what the law states.

And, I'll paraphrase someone else's sentiments: I've tried reading the law. But the problem is to do so you have to have the amount of time you have and, having an actual life, I don't.

So you admit that your behavior would violate the law, else you could post it without any negative consequences.

Then you don't have time to discuss the issue informedly...despite blathering on here at length. By the way, my statement dealt with *refuting* tw's posting, not just reading them. The relevant law is less than one third of the size of *one* typical tw post. If you can't be bother to click on the link and read the law, my sympathies.
*sigh*

No, I didn't say that. I said my behavior would be guided by the law. The law very specifically describes the circumstances under which the use of deadly force is legally justified.

I added the comment to point out that soliciting a written statement to the contrary is stupid. But being stupid doesn't seem to bother you. Since you refuse to read the law, you'll just have to live without enlightenment on the issue.

Not at all - please continue. ;)

You still don't get it. I'm not interested in the law. I'm interested in how you would handle these situations. You refuse to answer.

Yes, the "public health" crowd is full of useful opinion on the subject. There no shortage of liberal docs wanting to tell you how to live your life.

Do read that Gun Facts booklet, even though it would place you in jeopardy of being exposed to facts that contradict your preconceptions...if you think criminals don't think, perhaps you'd better think again; Gun Facts reports the results of surveys of felony prisoners as to what they do worry about when comitting a crime.

If you don't want to accept the protection afforded by being around armed citizens (and we wouldn't want you to compromise your principles) you can probably cancel the effect by posting a sign like this one outside your home or place of business.

cause ya know...its often their job to save or at least extend lives. (And reality has a well-known liberal bias. )

Guns are banned at my work place and I feel safer for it. I am also searched when entering sporting events, as guns are banned and I feel safer for it.

I can see we're going to disagree. Just dont shoot me for it. gotta run to class. cheers.

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance. ;)

My answer is I'd follow the law; it regulates when I can legally use deadly force. My actions would be based on my assessment of the actual situation and the motivations and intents of the actors invoved...which I can't possibly do from some vague description of an edge-case hypothetical you've pulled out of your ass.

If you'd read and understood the law, you'd know why that's important. But you don't care about the law.

This is a serious issue, not a parlor game. If you were seriously interested in the issue, instead of looking for a quick snarky buzz, you'd care about the law.

No. If you shoot someone you WILL be arrested. The Judge will decide if you can post bail or go back to jail while the District Attorney decides if he thinks you were justified. If he does not, you have to convince a jury you were justified. Hardy wild west, shooting someone (even if they don't die) is very serious business.:cool:

Well, Colorado may no longer be wild, but it is STILL western. Under Colorado law, had I shot my stalker, and his body had fallen in the door NOT outside it (that's why I was going to sit on my couch which was a good distance from my front door), I could then claim I was defending myself against an intruder. I'd have been arrested - POSSIBLY, but I would not have done jail time, and I'd have been able to get out on bail. In Colorado, if an intruder enters your home with harmful intent, you have the right to shoot him. I think the rebar would have proven the harmful attempt.:cool:

Speaking as the (possibly) only person here who HAS fired a legally owned firearm at an armed attacker, I have to agree 100% with Maggie's assessment.

I identified a dangerous situation (being fired upon)
I assessed the situation (number of attackers, skill with guns, possible non combatants in area, everything)
I chose to return fire (10 rounds out of 15 available to me)
The police were called AFTER the event
They responded to a report of a gun battle in a residential area two HOURS later!
No one was arrested.
The gunshots stopped at that time and were never repeated.

Those are the facts, Ma'am.

No... I don't. But, I live in a castle doctrine state.
If you are in my home uninvited/unannounced you are there to kill my family... you die. The same goes for a street threat. I must assume you are armed and mean me, or my family, harm with deadly force.
No responsible parent/spouse has the right to assume anything else IMO.
BTW... being fired upon, seeing a gun, is WAY too late.
My answer.

Don't know about CO... but in FL if you have reason to believe that you are in danger it does not matter what side of the door the body falls on... you have the RIGHT to protect yourself and that is right and just.
I was a bouncer and in security for several years, you never know what they have on them and you never know exactly when and how they are going to choose to do what they are going to do. If they choose to attack you or behave in a manner as to force you to respond in manner that is such that you must believe that your life is in danger, you have no time to "decide" what the intricacies of the law are. There is time to act and nothing else. At least FL and some other castle doctrine states have the wisdom to know that.

Oh... I do not have "republiblinders". I am a legalize it, go alternative fuel, pure Constitution followin', old timey, tie-dye wearin', liberal. That is why I believe in everyone's freedom to protect themselves just like we have always been able to do. Not one of these new fangled commie liberals.... they are not liberal at all, they are dictators in disguise.

Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws? Those laws define the situations in which deadly force is permissible and the situations in which it is not.

Any thinking law-abiding citizen who owns a gun must familiarize themselves with their local laws and act accordingly. (Admittedly, they do have additional options - they can or be a criminal, or be a victim - but neither seems to be the case for Maggie.) If you want to know how a law abiding citizen intends to use (or not use) a firearm, read up on the law and figure it out for yourself.

Here's a quick introduction to the subject, based on the laws in WA, where I live:

If you shoot someone, even under legally justifiable circumstances, you can expect to spend at least $100,000 on legal representation, and there is a non-trivial chance that you will lose everything you own as a result of a civil lawsuit (again, even if the law states that shooting was justified). I assume that most states are somewhat similar. This makes deadly force a last resort. Gun owners should assume that pulling the trigger will cost them everything they own. Most gun owners are gun owners because they would rather lose everything they own than lose their life.

Does that clarify things for you at all?

Was anyone hit? Did they die? :confused:

:lol2:

You got that right.