myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1162
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
How do any, let alone most or all, of the scenarios I presented fail to illustrate an imminent threat to life, let alone grave physical harm?


Okay you ask a simple honest question, I'll give you a simple honest answer, but you won't like it.

You seem to live in a simple universe where you are the only inhabitant of importance, but in the real world, you aren't. So let's look at your scenarios..... again.....

1. Driver pointing gun at wife. Once again I give this a maybe. Maybe in Hollywood shooting at cars works, reality it doesn't. First of all you are responsible for EVERY bullet you shoot. And I seriously doubt you have the training to shoot at a moving object from a moving object (your scenario implies this). I doubt 99% of the population has this skill so don't feel bad. I sure don't have it. So every round you fire will go somewhere and hit SOMETHING (or somebody). So you are increasing the risk presented to the public. Second of all what happens if you actually mange to hit the driver? So now we have a 2000+ pound object going down the road at some rate of speed. You are also responsible for what this car does, and WHO it hits. So you are INCREASING the risk to the general public. A no shoot scenario. You need to find another choice.


2. No lights tapping your bumper. Exact same result as above, no comment needed. A no shoot scenario.

3. Semi doing the same as above. Okay now you have a good chance of actually hitting something but causing any damage to stop it? Very unlikely and now if a miracle happens and you hit and incapacitate the driver now you have a 80,000 pound object going down the road uncontrolled. So you can take scenario 1 and 2 above and just multiply the heck out of it. A no shoot scenario.

4. Two red necks with glass bottles. I gave you this posibility before. AFTER you warn them. If they still keep coming? Shoot em. But you will most likely be arrested until it is all sorted out. I'd probably shoot, well I would if I carried a gun. But I haven't carried a gun off duty for over 10 years while I was a LEO, so I haven't felt the need to carry one during retirement. Instead I try to be aware of what is around me all the time, so I can remove myself from these types of problems before they happen.

5. The Home burglary. I still firmly believe in not killing a burglar who isn't causing harm. The previous post about a Drunk College girl being shot scares the crap out of me. Which is also why I think this law will get restricted over time. Cause if people can't compare the risk of a drunk college girl vs. an actual burglar, quite frankly they shouldn't have guns in the first place. What if it was dark and they shot their own kid????

But back to your question since you live in WA, and I actually have read that code, let's see.

"lawful defense" Assuming you have a legal right to be in your home an easy element to fullfill.

"reasonable ground to apprend a design" This means the person has taken some overt action other than just standing there. So based on the information of your scenario? Assuming they have something with them to haul away your goods or some type of weapon, then we are getting some place. So it would depend on the totality of what is going on.

"to commit a felony or do some great personal injury" Okay if they are grabbing your big screen TV or holding a baseball bat or a knife in their hand this would probably qualify. Just standing there? Nope.

"immiment danger of such design being accomplished" This is the fun part. They have to take SOME overt action to accomplish the felony or injury. Such as making an advancement towards you. Lets say they see you turn and start to run away? Then it is now a no-shoot. However if all the above conditions are met, then this can be a shoot scenario. Also keep in mind you will have seconds to take all this in an decide. Then most likely 12 people who have all the time in the world will decide if you were right. Unless of course it is real clear cut.

But when it comes to the home, let's look at it in it's totality. If you hit the guy now you have blood stains on your floor, possibly ruining the carpet/flooring (and that assumes he doesn't die on your floor and ALL his bodily fluids release). And if he/she dies, you have that in your thoughts which will never go away as long as you live there and when/if you sell the house in the future, something that must be disclosed (which will discourage some buyers).

But back to the scenario, if all the conditions are met, then heck yeah, shoot the sucker. BUT expect to have to explain, in court how those conditions are met. And of course the defense attorney for the burglar will probably pull all of the people here online as witnesses as to your "stability" Smile Just kidding about the last.... Sort of .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnl-well posted, and I learned most of this--in 1966--in High School civics class. At that time, you could shoot someone who had broken into your house and you believed, as a reasonable person, posed you great bodily harm. A knife or gun, or club, would suffice. Rig a booby trap with a shotgun to shoot someone who tried to steal tools from your garage? Go to jail. 1966.

But remember, Iso has never forgotten, much less forgiven, a slight. And he takes everything personally. So sad. Most of the time it really isn't about him. Maybe its about trying to minimize the number of innocent people that get shot by people who never forgive a slight?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14050

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnl wrote:
isobars wrote:
How do any, let alone most or all, of the scenarios I presented fail to illustrate an imminent threat to life, let alone grave physical harm?

You seem to live in a simple universe where you are the only inhabitant of importance, but in the real world, you aren't. So let's look at your scenarios..... again.....

1. Driver pointing gun at wife. Once again I give this a maybe. Maybe in Hollywood shooting at cars works, reality it doesn't.

2. No lights tapping your bumper. Exact same result as above, no comment needed. A no shoot scenario.

3. Semi doing the same as above. ... now you have a 80,000 pound object going down the road uncontrolled. ...A no shoot scenario.

4. Two red necks with glass bottles. I gave you this posibility before. AFTER you warn them. ...Instead I try to be aware of what is around me all the time, so I can remove myself from these types of problems before they happen.

5. The Home burglary. I still firmly believe in not killing a burglar who isn't causing harm.... What if it was dark and they shot their own kid????

If you hit the guy now you have blood stains on your floor ... of course the defense attorney for the burglar will probably pull all of the people here online as witnesses as to your "stability" Smile Just kidding about the last.... Sort of .....

I'll ignore your opening obligatory personal salvo (which mistakes brevity for ignorance or self-importance; I'm not trying to present an entire legal case) and get back to the issue: I agree with your analyses, but all of them extend far beyond my fundamental question and some assume far too many or too few details. My question was about the fundamental legalities of the self-protection criteria, not the practicality of each scenario.

For example:
1. The legal requirements still seem to be met. Practically, however, we were in enough traffic to present hazards, so stray bullets and a stray car would affect one's actions. However, his tire was about 5 feet from me, the unencumbered passenger, and there are always radiators. I've often wondered, too, whether a few slugs into the top of an engine, where the electronics and fuel injectors nestle, would disable a threatening car. I still can't imagine why all three police agencies refused to give a damn, considering the evidence and potential witnesses we had.

2. The only evidence of mankind within 10 miles were our two vehicles and the asphalt, he was an extremely clear and imminent threat to my life, and every alternative I had tried had failed. The practical show-stopper was that I was alone and ain't Stallone, but that wasn't a legal barrier.

3. Traffic came and went (I've always lived in boondocks, not CA; I often can see no other vehicles or buildings where and when I drive), so the practical complication was that, again, I was alone. Victims may have died in the case my brother saw; the cars "my" two trucks deliberately ran off the freeway stayed upright. Today, of course, cell phones are the first line of defense if the threat isn't immediate. I don't know if the truckers I escaped harmed any other targets.

4. Fortunately, I was a much younger and faster sprinter then, and didn't have a 68-yo wife to protect. Today, if we choose to carry (I agree with you that's unnecessary ... until, of course, it's not ... and thus highly doubtful; we'll see whether our courses change our minds), they'd be looking at two handguns.

5. This isn't about some hypothetical "they". There are only two occupants of my house, I'm not talking about shooting just because some shadowy form doesn't belong there, we have 500 lumen lights at hand (100 is blinding), the perps will be distracted by two dogs, no one can get into our home by mistake (all doors and windows are locked), etc.

As for the "witnesses" in this forum ... not to worry; the archives will totally discredit them. When even its resident cop and resident attorney can't defend their accusations of BS, where does that leave the cowering anonymous masses who do so little BUT accuse?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1933
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see Mike got out of the same side of the bed. Well, each side is the same, so who can tell any difference?
_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpbassking



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 2362
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maj. Jack D Ripper wrote:
.... When even its resident cop and resident attorney can't defend their accusations of BS, where does that leave the cowering anonymous masses who do so little BUT accuse?


Blame it on fluoridation.

_________________
{JP:}====****
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coyotewindsurf



Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 1269
Location: SF Bay

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Shocked

_________________
mo


Last edited by coyotewindsurf on Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5143

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great cartoon Mo. If our wing nut from the Northwest knew how to protect his 68 year old wife, my guess is that he would disengage from these activities that seem to keep happening to him, rather than escalating them. But that would take more ego-strength than he seems to have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1162
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isobars, Actually it wasn't really a "personal salvo". Your posts have tended to show a very centered point of view and seem not to consider all the implications to the rest of the world, so although it might have been a cheap shot, I was TRYING to get you to open your eyes and see beyond the "self".

Once again, even in the boonies, you have no idea if nobody is around. After all you are there, who can say nobody else is? The "what it's" are endless. What if the guy is dead, slumps over the steering wheel and the his dead leg pushes on the gas pedal and the car continues to travel? Once again it is that unknown that presents a risk to the community. While you have a right to defend yourself, you do not have that right at the risk to the rest of the public. In shooting we call this "shooting background" which is just as important as the "shooting foreground".

Forget Hollywood. Shooting to stop another vehicle is not a real world practical solution. I'm also sure the list of your "instructors" would agree to this. If they don't, then quite frankly they are nuts. We are not the military, and don't have the firepower to take out cars. Now unless you are packing a SAW or something similar, forget it. In one of my "wild days" I actually shot up a car. With 12 gauge, 9mm, 45cal, and .223 cal. You would be surprised how little penetrated.... Ah the good ole days of finding an old abandoned car out in the desert. Although it was an older model over 20 years ago, and probably built out of steel Smile

As to the group "witnesses" I was actually joking, sort of. Times are changing. LEO's are looking at webpages, Facebook and all sorts of places to find stuff. People think they can say what they want and it will never come back. Well maybe years ago, not so much anymore....

But lets talk about guns. I'll speak first hand here. Once upon a time I was a new cop. Like all new cops I carried my gun 100% of the time, everywhere, everyday. Well what I found is that carrying a gun, kind of like wearing racing leathers on a roadbike tends to make you push the envelope. To do things you normally probably wouldn't do. In other words, dumb stuff. An example. You decide to go to a bar and have a drink. Now you are armed and intoxicated. DUMB! I've seen first hand examples of this. It's our nature.

Well remove the gun from the person, and the likelyhood of them doing dumb stuff is reduced. Also keep in mind once you carry that gun, YOU are responsible for everything it does. In otherwords if it's sitting in your car/van/truck while you are out windsurfing and somebody takes it and uses it, it will come back to you civily at being responsible (probably not criminally). Over time this caused me to reduce my carrying of my weapon more and more to the point I only wore it to and from work. I still have cop friends who carry 100%. It's a personal choice.

Most cops have developed a sense of knowing what is going on around them. We call it walking around in "Condition Yellow". Most people are in "Condition Green" which means pretty much they don't really observe much around them. My point is that over time you develop the desire to be aware of everything around you at all times. THIS helps you identify problems around you before they become a risk to you. My wife knows this very well. In ANY restaurant I will not sit with my back to the door. So that means usually she has to. Also if I tell her what to do "in my cop voice" then she knows not to argue, but to do it (and Heaven help her if she picks that time to argue).

Unfortunately with the crazy stuff going around (you know people killing lots of other people) it is getting harder to do this. So I have nothing against people who decide to carry legally with proper training. However I also know from experience that they will do "dumber stuff". How much dumber? Who knows, that is an individual thing. My rule when I carried is that if I couldn't shoot and kill the person legally, I didn't even bother to pull the gun out. Because bluffing with a gun doesn't work. Most criminals know when you can and can't shoot them and will work that to their advantage. They do it to cops all the time, they would have no problem doing it to a civilian.

Three of your scenarios involved firing at vehicles. You will be very hard pressed to find "reasonable" people to agree with that. Those same "reasonable people" will be on your jury. Good luck convincing them. Your other two scenarios had possible shoot situations. More details would be required to say yes or no, but they were very possible. The vehicle ones, nope, not even. Even if you had a legal RPG to take out the vehicle, do you really think you could shoot?

But seriously Mike, you really need to sit down and think WHY do all these things happen to me? The majority of people can go through an entire lifetime without any contact with LEO's and violent people (much less two sandwich eating contacts). What is it about you that is drawing them to you? Until you realize that it is something you are doing or maybe something you should be doing, it will probably continue.


Last edited by johnl on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1162
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome cartoon Mo. I wish I had 1/10 of your ability. Even my stick people drawings suck.... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4058

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

February 7, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

A solicitation posted yesterday on the Fed Bid website details how the bullets are required for the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).

The document also lists a requirement for 1.6 million pistol cartridge 9mm ball bullets (40 quantities of 40,000 rounds).

An approximation of how many rounds of ammunition the DHS has now secured over the last 10 months stands at around 1.625 billion. In March 2012, ATK announced that they had agreed to provide the DHS with a maximum of 450 million bullets over four years, a story that prompted questions about why the feds were buying ammunition in such large quantities. In September last year, the federal agency purchased a further 200 million bullets.

To put that in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last 10 months to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.

Such massive quantities of ammo purchases have stoked fears that the agency is preparing for some kind of domestic unrest. In 2011, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

The federal agency’s primary concern is now centered around thwarting “homegrown terrorism,” but information produced and used by the DHS to train its personnel routinely equates conservative political ideology with domestic extremism.

A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security that was leaked last year characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

In August 2012, the DHS censored information relating to the amount of bullets purchased by the federal agency on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, citing an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation that could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.

While Americans are being browbeaten with rhetoric about the necessity to give up semi-automatic firearms in the name of preventing school shootings, the federal government is arming itself to the teeth with both ammunition and guns. Last September, the DHS purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “Personal Defense Weapons.”

Why does the Social Security office need tens of millions of bullets???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
Page 66 of 162

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group