Guns don't kill people ....

[sexobon]

Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.

[Spexxvet]

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

In these days of doped up perps, "stuff" can turn to "lives" (or rape or torture) in less than a heartbeat. I wouldn't kill for stuff either; but, I have the advantage of tactical training plus experience that might enable me to better discern what's at stake and avail myself of more options than most other civilians. I'm not going to sit in judgment of those who don't; unless, I'm legally charged to do so by way of jury duty.

The comparison you suggest would be interesting; but, of limited use even if that information could be accurately obtained. While the good of the many generally outweighs the needs of the few, when it comes to the right of self preservation, sometimes the good of the many is outweighed by the needs of the few - or the one.

It will always be a balancing act and it appears the process will be in the adversarial form of our judicial system with staunch advocates for both extremes going at each other while those in the middle hope to take from it what's best for them. I don't believe there's a one size fits all national solution and that it will continue to be the purview of the states. I hold the people of each state accountable for those decisions and not entire national organizations whether they be business, political, religious ... etc.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules. It should not be a 'almost anything goes' law like in Florida but it shouldn't be so restrictive that it prevents people from protecting themselves or their properties, if they understand the potential consequences of doing so.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Need I continue with this stupid rationale?

IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

[RACE] is the issue.

Really? Gee thats a new twist

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules.

Agreed

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

Well, that's the thing, Spex...you are not legally permitted to kill over STUFF. You have to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. If some drunk breaks in and lays on my couch because he thinks he's in his own house, I call the police. If someone breaks in tries grabbing my flat screen, my dogs will be on him along with myself and hand him an ass beating. If he is armed and threatens me, I drop him. It's not like the wild west...you have to know when you are legally permitted to use deadly force. I have studied it as a responsible gun owner.