Since you own a gun...
 

When would actually use your gun to kill someone? If you were threatened by someone with a gun, undoubtedly you would try to shoot first. If you or your immediate family were threatened with bodily harm, I can understand. How about if it's your cousin, or a neighbor? What if a stranger was being accosted by someone with a bat? What if a stranger was being accosted by someone with a roll of toilet paper? What if someone walked into your house, unarmed, and said nothing - just kind of walked around looking at things, but not touching anything, and wouldn't leave when you asked him to or told him to? What if the person was a woman? A boy? A girl?

What would it take for you to kill someone with your gun?

I would kill someone if I felt that the damage from the person I was considering killing outdid the damage of actually killing the person.

it depends on what i need and who has it

I actually was once in the position of seriously having to decide to kill someone or not. I got stalked by this complete wacko for three years. He threatened to kill me. In fact he once came after me with a piece of re-barb, and I barely made it into my house in time to lock the door and call the cops. I should have made charges against him, but I was scared of what he'd do if I did. He threatened to kill my best friend; and the last straw was when he threatened to kill my mother. I had a friend who was an ex biker chick and she coached me on what to do under Colorado's "make my day law." I was going to sit on my couch with the door unlocked (the guy was always cruising my street to see if I was home). I was going to hold my Dad's officer's colt in my lap and when he got fully inside, I was going to shoot him.

Lucky for me I had a good friend who is a young Gulf War vet and in excellent physical condition. My friend cornered my stalker in a parking lot and told him in exact detail just what he was going to do to him if anything ever happened to me. He also promised to track him to the ends of the earth if he had to. I guess my friend was pretty convincing because my stalker left town the next day and was never heard from again. I figure either someone else shot the dude or else he's in jail.

Killing someone with a gun isn't something you give a lot of thought to. When its time to do it, you'll know.

Have you read the law on justification? For Pennsylvania, it can be found at http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html

It's my opinion that anyone who carries and hasn't read and understood their local equivalant of that law is being irresponsible. I think that would require "giving a lot of thought to it".

Usually when I see someone fishing for edge cases like ol' Spexxy here it's because he's got an itch to play "slippery slope".

The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it. I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation. But I figure people dont know if I have one or not cause of all you people who do have them, so yeah.

Que? This is an international BB on the WWW..... pray explain the relevence of Pennsylvnia Borough Council ByeLaws to the rest of us....

Whether or not I could kill was something that I long considered before I made the decision to own a pistol. If the answer had been no, I wouldn't have a firearm in the house. I owned and shot a bow for many years. My purpose was enjoyment of target shooting. I still do this with a pistol, but with the understanding that there is a reason for my practice.

As far as "justification laws," one has to check their own jurisdiction's version because there is a lot of variance. Some states require retreat, some require feeling at risk of loss of life, and others allow you to shoot to defend property as well as life.

All of which beats what is sometimes called "Government Sponsored Dial-a-Prayer."

I live in a township that has a lot of officers on the street. It is not unusual to take up to 15 minutes for an officer to respond to a call. In some places, that can go as long as a half-hour, or even more. A lot can happen in that length of time.

I used to be the webmistress for a gunshop. I added a quote to the site that the owner loved.

Gun Control: The notion that a woman lying dead in an alley, raped and then strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman in the same alley explaining to police how her attacker died of fatal bullet wounds.

That is actually a very good reason not to own a gun.

mmmmm..... substtute 'ex-husband ex-lover some guy in th street who pissed me off for 'attacker' in that quote...

Wolf ain't bull shitting , I Helped my wife pick out the correct hand gun for HER , tought her how to shoot ( she had shot Some , but I tought her how to shoot so it counts ) , she can shoot a 5 shot group the size of a fist at 25 + ft , all day every day and move that group ANY where she wants ,
We have had LONG discussions about deadley force , no warning shots , NO leg shots , if'n you have to draw you SHOOT TO KILL !!!

Mozambik drill . 2 to the chest , 1 to the head, if that won't drop a person that NEEDS shooting I dont know what will

I would actually use a gun to kill someone when even if I didn't have a gun I would kill that someone anyway.

You can "what if" the topic to death; but, society evaluates each shooting as a unique set of circumstances. Sensible people use applicable laws and case studies to answer those questions for themselves. Among the things that case studies have demonstrated is that in the aftermath of any shooting, previous statements made by shooters in response to "what if" questions can be spun to work against them. It can be contended that a shooter was predisposed (i.e. already made up their mind) to act in a particular way regardless of the unique set of circumstances they faced in real time when a shooting occured. Even that which is learned through bona fide training by competent authority (e.g. law enforcement) should not be casually discussed in the context of "what if" situations. With all of the resources law enforcement itself has, it too at times has difficulty validating justifiable shootings. I don't think you will get many answers that specifically address your "what if" questions [at least I hope not].

I don't have that kind of a temper, another reason that I carry.

Thanks for not answering the question. I guess it depends what your definition of "is" is.

I'm not interested in the laws. When would you, MaggieL kill someone with your gun?

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.

You have never been shot at.

Of course! :smack: Maggie has legitimate reasons. Anybody with an opposition to the way Maggie thinks does so for illegitimate reasons - liberalism, weakness, ignorance. :crazy:

Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something? What-ever it was, it was pretty scarey looking. My stalker wanted instant gratification by threatening with heavy objects or just his fists. Poisoning me would have been too slow and he might not have been around to see me die. He also drove around with a gun in his car for a while. He'd borrowed it from a friend. The weirdest thing of all was that the stalker considered himself in love with me. Hint to all you guys out there: Threatening someone and their mother with death is not exactly the way to a girl's heart.:eyebrow:

Which is why it's called "re-bar"...short for "reinforcing bar". They run from like a half inch up to two inches or more in diameter. The larger sizes make a nasty bludgeon.

True dat. I hope to keep it that way, too.

Death By Rhubarb
 

Well marichiko, I was joking with that one. You are right about re-bar, it's just when you wrote "re-barb" I couldn't resist the rhubarb comment.

It reminded me of some dude here who was upset that the Coast Guard wanted him to have a "collage" degree. I told him I could have understood if they wanted him to have a degree in macrame for all the knot-tying he would have to do, but why collage?

Just fun with typos.

http://www.hutchison-inc.com/images/...arge/rebar.jpg

Whoever that stalker was, I hope he is totally out of your life. That would freak me out.:worried:

Perhaps he should be put into some formwork with rebar and have concrete poured around him?:neutral:

How very lame.

You clearly want to get out onto the slipperly slope and play with hypothetical edge-cases until somebody says something that you can wave around as a bloody shirt to prove how "humane and progessive" you are compared to the "gun nuts". A childishly transparent ploy. Sorry to spoil your game.

The law defines the conditions under which I can use deadly force to defend myself or another person, and I accept those conditions. How hard is that to understand?

Have you read the law yet?

I didn't think so.

That explains a lot!:thankyou:

Have you answered my question yet.

I know you did not, it's not just what I think.:p

Yes, I did. As I've said several times, my behavior would be guided by what the law allows. Since you say you don't care about the law, you're out of luck.

If it was my intention to violate the law, I'd have to be a moron to admit that intention in writing.

Gee Maggie, I wonder what stats you can find to support that righteous claim.
Here's mine: I'll continue to extend protection to the 3% of handgun carriers by remaining unarmed in daily life, thus cutting down on accidental discharge and gun theft.:rolleyes:

(heh heh she said "discharge" heh heh)

Typically when a state implements "shall-issue" concealed carry, about 3% of the eligible population gets licences. Now a criminal doesn't know if their intended victim is packing or not...so the protection extends to people who don't carry, but *might* be.

Unless they're wearing a Kerry button or something.

If it's stats you seek, there's a boatload of them at gunfacts.info

So, in the US you can kill another citizen without any question asked? You don't think, you pull your weapon and BANG! Go ahead, make my day punk... No wonder so many gun related death in th US.

Who is going say you're protecting life? You never have to proof that?

Well, is it allowed by law to kill another citizen? Any proof? I can't imagine this Wild West rule still holds law in the modern US and A. In our country it's against the law to kill or even shoot at another citizen, at any circumstances. Probably we'r too liberal here. Then again gun related deaths are about 100 times less here too...

For once, could you just answer my question without the knee jerk Pavlov reaction about liberals? Show me the law and define the situation, pretty please...

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.