Jiro

again - never heard of such incident. never happened. please do provide a link to news story that says otherwise.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Jiro

I am allowed to use self-defense against criminals if I use some kung-fu panda moves.

I am not allowed to use self-defense against criminals if I use a gun because the law is very specific about it which pretty much rendered my self-defense w/ a gun useless.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

jillio

I did not ask you to defend me from criminals. I ask the police to do that. You are taking a responsibility upon yourself that is not yours to take.

I regularly go into some of the worst neighborhoods, crime wise, in several cities. I have clients there that need home visits. I have yet to take a gun, or any other weapon with me. And I have yet to feel I was placed in a situation that threatened personal harm. I don't automatically fear for my safety just because I am in a crime ridden area. Some people just see danger everywhere, and they usually vastly overestimate the danger. Consequently, they react based on fear, and innocent people loose their lives.And I've got news for you. In the areas I go into, your gun would be taken away from you, you would be pistol whipped with it, and left laying in the street just to show you that you aren't as bad as you think you are. Your attitude is what puts you at risk.

What are you so afraid of in NJ? That Snooky will sneak up on you and bitch slap you?

jillio

There is a reason for that. Think. Defense rarely requires shooting to kill.

Reba

That's not what the state agencies that issue concealed carry permits say. If they thought that those permit carriers were irresponsible, they wouldn't issue them the permits.

The fact that the great majority who have permits and are carrying a concealed weapon at any given time don't use them in an irresponsible manner proves that they are stable people.

Reba

Rarely is not the same as never. In those rare cases that do require shoot-to-kill responses for defense, at least that option is available.

Jiro

I have a shotgun at my home with Brenneke slug that is designed to kill a large animal. If I were to use it on criminal who broke into my home and all he's got was a baseball bat... I can be held criminally-liable for it for using disproportionate use of force. Technically, my self-defense is justified but it largely depends on where you live because in this county, it is extremely notorious for being anti-gun. Prosecutor can and will pursue criminal investigation against me just to make an example out of me and paint me as a crazy Rambo-wannabe.

I'll have to hire an expensive lawyer even though prosecutor knows what I did was justified but they do it anyway just to give me hard time.

Why? If NJ government can't legally keep guns out of your hands, they'll make sure to make you go broke to give it up.

Proof? Brian Aitken. New Jersey Man Serving Seven Years in Prison for Legal Guns | Bergen County Criminal Law Attorney Blog
Brian is protected by federal law regarding transporting guns between states however the judge forbade anyone from mentioning about this federal law in court and refused to provide information about this to jury as per request by jury several times. so the jury had no choice but to find him guilty even though jury knows very well that Brian was innocent.

As the result - Governor Christie commuted Brian's sentence and refused to reappoint that judge.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Jiro

huh? why would you say such silly thing? why would I get involved in something that doesn't involve me? you should be calling 911, not me. I'm not a police nor a vigilante. It's your problem, not my problem.

that's fine. you have a choice to carry it or not. I don't. You don't see anything wrong with that?

that only happens in movies, not reality.

Does it matter? I should have that rights anytime, anywhere but it doesn't mean I will pack a heat to grocery or when I meet Snookie. So why are you so afraid about a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun? You live in a gun-friendly state and nothing happened to you.

This is comical. You've stated your stance in gay marriage thread that people have NO business in telling people what to do. And yet.... you're in this thread, telling me what to do and what not to do.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

naisho

I guess according to what I understand jillio is saying, everyone carrying a gun in AZ is putting everyone else in danger and being irresponsible.

Reba

So, there are violent attacks that occur in those neighborhoods?

If Jiro was carrying his weapon concealed, how would the attacker know that Jiro had a gun that he could take and use for pistol whipping?

Your hypothetical scenario doesn't make sense.

Jiro

there's a reason for Castle Doctrine. It deters criminals from hurting people.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

TXgolfer

Then why are you debating/arguing here?

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

jillio

Yeah, and all background checks have predictive validity, too.

Got any stats on that?

jillio

I'm not. You simply seem to confused regarding the construct of "debate".

jillio

Links, please. Stats, please. All it does is give the voters a false sense of being in control.

Jiro

over 45 states have it. that speaks with volumes.

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

jillio

Gee, I don't know. Would you consider shootings and gang activity to be violent?

Makes perfect sense to me. It wasn't hypothetical. Like I said, attitude portrays what others see.

jillio

So? That doesn't support your claim that it reduces home invasions.

jillio

Yeah, it matters. It speaks volumes as to whether you see threat when no threat has been displayed. And anyone operating on that kind of hypervigilance and fear is liable to do something stupid with that loaded gun.

TXgolfer

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

jillio

Then you misunderstand what jillio is saying.

naisho

so whatcha mean about carrying a gun in public can put them in danger?
Everyone in Arizona can concealed carry a gun with or without a permit in public. There doesn't seem to be any imminent impending doom or danger for everyone walking around there today, right now.

At the same time, we don't see the recent crime statistics prove that AZ is any different from the norm of gun-related crimes in other states.

TWA

That's why you don't use a 12 gauge slug round for home defense. Shot loads in a smaller gun, say a 16 or 20 gauge, are one of the most oft-recommended choices for home defense because the shot doesn't penetrate drywall. It will definitely cause some damage to your home, but the risk of a bullet passing through walls and injuring innocents is considerably less with a shot load than a handgun.

Surely, being the big tough guy gun expert that you are, you would have known this?

You completely missed the point of these videos. (I doubt you even watched them all the way through or paid attention to the CC). The point this video made is that there are not many situations when you're life is really in danger from an armed shooter, and when it is, a gun is rarely going to help you (as shown by this video). Unless you've got advanced combat training and stay in practice often, all that sense of security the heat you're packing is going to slip away when faced by a real threat.

When a robber uses a gun, it is almost always for intimidation only. They do not intend to fire, and are probably just as scared by the possibly of firing the weapon as the victim is.

I'm glad you brought this video up again and are holding it as a shining example of CCW, because it exposes your reckless ignorance. The CCW clerk in this video should have been charged with multiple offenses.

First: He put three innocent bystanders at risk, including a baby, by drawing his weapon and firing at a thug who most likely had no intention of shooting.

Second: he used his coworker as a shield so he could draw his weapon in secrecy and fire from behind her large frame. That's quite brave of him, doing that, don't you think?

Third: The thug flees (proving my point that he didn't intend to shoot or get in a standoff here; he just wanted money) but rambo keeps firing INTO HIS BACK as he attempts to flee. That is no longer self-defense. That is attempted murder.

So, there were two scenarios here:

1) Thug robs motel, leaves with a few hundred dollars cash, which is reimbursed by insurance company. Nobody is hurt. Thug most likely would have been apprehended after being identified by security cameras and eyewitnesses.

2) Thug attempts to rob motel but rambo intervenes, putting multiple people at risk, and ends up nearly killing a man, all because he wants to be a hero. Now we have a huge investigation, legal proceedings, police presence, and medical care for the wounded thug that is going to total thousands and thousands of dollars and come OUT OF OUR TAXPAYER MONEY.

Which sounds better to you?



That you would support this sort of "law abiding citizen" is really telling. Anyone who believes rambo here is a shining example of CCW holders is out of their mind. As for the rest of the inane micro-debating on this thread, I can't even begin to sort through it. What a waste of my time.

Reba

Other than you, who said that?

Do you have any to prove otherwise?

Since there have been about 6 million permits issued in the USA, and there haven't been anywhere near that many convicted permit-carrying shooters, I would say that's a valid statement.

jillio

Depends. Where are you carrying it? What is your mind set when you have that gun on your hip? How willing are you to put people in danger just to stop a bad guy from robbing a store of money?

You have to look beyond the moment. If you are comfortable with someone with something to prove going into a grocery store full of mothers and children packing a loaded weapon, then I guess it's your decision to be okay with that. I personally, am not okay with that. If you need to carry a concealed, or open weapon because you are making large cash deposits at the bank in the wee hours of the morning, that's one thing. If you just want to show everyone you can't be messed with, chances are, you will get messed with, and that gun is going to kill someone that didn't deserve to die.

jillio

You said people have to qualify for gun ownership and CCW. That includes a background check. Given the fact that people are not re-tested on a regular basis, nor have to have any refesher training in most states, that really doesn't mean much.

jillio

Shooting someone in the back is not considered self defense in any state. Even a law enforcement officer would be charged.

Reba

National-Academies.org | Newsroom

Reba

So, these gangs would attack Jiro but not you? How do you know what attitude he would display? Again I ask, how would anyone know that Jiro was wearing a concealed weapon?

jillio

There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.

Right. So the many claims made here that crime is reduced are false.

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

So, then answer to children being killed accidentally by guns in the home is either to secure those guns, keep them unloaded with no easy access to ammunition, or don't have guns in the home.--

Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

Simple correlation. There is an association between chronic pain and suicide, too. Doesn't really say much except the two are found together. Same thing with drugs.

Research linking firearms to criminal violence and suicide is seriously limited by a lack of credible information on who owns firearms and on individuals' encounters with violence, the report says. Moreover, many studies have methodological flaws or provide contradictory evidence; others do not determine whether gun ownership itself causes certain outcomes.

It is dangerous to base policy on research that is inconclusive and so weak in methodology. Unless there can be a proven benefit, good sense says don't risk the possible negative consequences.

Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.

Nothing to support the claims that CCW or open carry deters crime.

Firearms are bought and sold in both formal markets, such as gun shops, and informal ones, such as the underground economy. Market-based interventions aimed at reducing criminals' access to guns include taxes on weapons and ammunition, limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period, and gun "buy back" initiatives. Arguments for and against these approaches are largely based on speculation rather than scientific evidence. Data on gun markets -- on how many guns are sold through various channels, or how systematically background checks are performed, for instance -- are virtually nonexistent. Greater attention should be paid to research design and data needs regarding gun markets, the report says. More studies also should be conducted on potential links between firearms policies and suicide rates.

Exactly what I have been saying. Speculation, and data is non-existent regarding the safety of CCW laws.

Data limitations are immense in the study of firearms and violence, the committee emphasized. The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System. No single data system can answer all questions about violent events, but it is important to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths.

And I would say, accuracy in the statements made by a few people who are making unfounded claims.

National-Academies.org | Newsroom

Thanks for the link, Reba.