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".

[HungLikeJesus]

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

Imma buy me a big gun and buttfuck them in the mouth with it. I can't afford bullets.

[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

[Ibby]

One day, I plan to own a handgun and a rifle. maybe multiple. I'm not really into shotguns or "assault" weapons but could imagine owning an AK-47 or something.

I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.

But I don't feel like, anywhere in Vermont, I would need to.

*This statement not intended to be political in any way. Just personal.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Ibram

...
I would never use a weapon to defend myself...

Not even if a bunch of the locals were outside your door with torches and pitchforks?

[Ibby]

I couldn't do it. Like, I have no business using a weapon to defend myself. Gun owners talk about how some mythical Übermensch of the Responsible Gun Owner is who they mean when they talk about gun owners... I am not that. I don't believe that I could make the hard choices, be the right responsible actor in a high-stakes, high-stress situation like that. If I can't talk my way out of it, well, I'm SOL... but if I picked up a weapon to be used for violence, I do not believe that I would be able to use it responsibly, and using it irresponsibly, even under emotional stress, i don't believe is forgivable, even if you didn't create the situation. I'm not necessarily saying that should be the law, but I don't think the use of violent force, even in self-defense, is justified if the force is applied irresponsibly.

[Griff]

I think that is a completely valid argument for a single person to make. If you have others in your household, sacrificing them to a principle you hold is less noble. I look at it like the nutters who don't seek medical help because Jesus is gonna cure them. Fine die of cancer, but don't let your children die to improve your relationship with the guy in the sky. Thankfully, I live in a "castle" state where in the unlikely event of a home invasion I can do whatever needs to be done, without having to read the mind of my assailant. If possible I'd avoid confrontation, but I'm not sacrificing myself or my children.

Strange correlation: We've seen the video of the kids with the rc car pushing the guys golf balls around. Being a golf hater, I thought it was hilarious if a little mean, but then the kid confronted the old man over a not unpredictable response. The home invader is an extreme version of that kid, crossing a psychological line with unpredictable results, because his victim is surprised and has no way of knowing his intent and maybe buried his wife yesterday.

[dmg1969]

Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but......

If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off.

[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.

[infinite monkey]

Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?

Griff: I suppose it would've also been funny had someone ran an RC around just as people in their bee-keeper costumes were getting ready to jab pointy things at each other in a time-honored and noble sport.

dmg: I guess I'll pull out a conservative-ish thought and say that you can't really define a 'liberal mind-set' because I would protect myself (a single person, no dog, no gun, but a big knife) if someone invaded my home. I'd kill the hell out of someone who was trying to take away my life and my freedom to be safe in my own home. Or die trying.

We liberals aren't all pushovers.

[ZenGum]

I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.

I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.

I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.