manxman Right To Shoot First State

[Oldman]

manxman,

On another thread you asked about the Right To Shoot First States. I posting my answer here as I expect that thread to get deleted.

Allow me to explain how it works here in the States. Here from State to State Laws vary. Laws such as the Right to Shoot First protect the honest person; however most laws do not protect the honest person.  We do have people here who believe that all laws will protect a person. Laws are what we are judge by.

In my State any person who has a legal permit to carry a gun has the right not to retreat from any legal area that they are allowed to be in and carry said gun. If an event comes up where a legal gun carrying person believes another person is about to hurt them or their family that person may take first action. If the investigation proves out that the person's fears were justified then by law that person cannot be prosecuted in either a civil or criminal court.

Basically what it boils down to is if I'm a legal gun carry person and believe that another person is threating me I can shoot first.

What is the value of this law? Today in my State our crime rate is the lowest it has been in over a quarter of a century.

Now let's contrast this to Washington DC where they have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Where the average person cannot have a gun. Last year alone the Chief of Police had to declare a criminal emergency twice.

More and more States are moving toward the Right To Shoot First.  The crime rate in those states are dropping. As I said most Laws don't protect a person. They only judge.

It was not to long ago due to a ban I as an honest person could not purchase high capacity mags. Now I can and I do. I have 2 - 30 round mags, and 10- 20 round mags.  The question may be asked why do I feel I need these? The reason is the same reason that more and more Police department are arming  the Officers with more than a shot gun and a side arm. The bad guys just have more fire power.

Plus I believe it is my Right to own a reasonable means of defense

Olds

[winemakers]

Olds,

I couldnt agree more.  I believe that I have a fundamental right to defend myself.  Concurrent with that right is the responsibility to behave within the law and within reasonable bounds.  Should I be a jackass that shoots first without provocation, then lock me away for life, but should I save myself or my family, the current court system supports wrongful death suits with ridiculous awards for dead criminals.

I believe strongly that I should be responsible for my actions.  Consequences are no longer taught.  My children get trophies for participating in everything, and I admit, I dont know what to feel.  I think its great they are excited but they get something for nothing, ie do not excel but still get awards?  On the black side of that equation, is children in school cannot be scolded or reprimanded, or should I choose to swat my child's fanny (and thank god with my 4 and 7 year old I have not had too yet) I could get sent to local social services agencies for their discipline.  Kids play bloody video games without understanding what blood means.  I am a child of a farm.  We struggled to bring critters into this world, bottle fed them, raised them, milked or otherwise utilized them till no longer productive, then ate them.  We were taught what happened when we pulled the trigger, something died.  If it was meaningless, it was a tragedy with the worst of ramifications, as life is paramount.  Now, kids who commit crimes go to summer camp until 18 and their records are expunged and they get to lead a normal life, while their victim is still a victim.

Behavior is tolerated that is unacceptable.  In sports, student athletes that are 10 and 12 years old mouth off to coaches and officials in ways that are unimaginable.  There are no consequences for being a jerk.  Mommy says its ok Johnny and a teacher/coach/official has no voice of reason.  Look at professional athletes behavior today.

The base theme of this treatise is preaching responsibility and accountability.  Due whatever you believe necessary, but buddy boy, you had better be able to accept the consequences.  This tempers your judgment and will force you to think about the other guy.

Sorry, rambling

mld

[TomG]

My concern is that the average gun owner has neither the capability of assessing the need for deadly force nor the gun handling skills to apply that force and is just as likely to injure themselves or even worse an innocent bystander.  8) 

[coyote]

MANXMAN,
             In the Mountain State of West Virgina the bad guys have guns , legal and illegal... That's why we , the good guys can carry them too.(legal) We all know
the difference between right and wrong. Who would you bet on to honor the right
decision ? The good or the bad ?.... That's why the good guys carry them too.

                                                              Coyote

PS. REMEMBER: When they outlaw guns...only outlaws will have them.

[manxman]

I posting my answer here as I expect that thread to get deleted.

Yes, I thought about that after I posted, glad you picked up on it and posted a separate reply.

On this side of the pond more and more effort seems to be going into protecting the criminal whilst the decent man in the street appears to have little or no rights or protection either. Obviously gun laws over here are very different in any case.

It was refreshing to read well balanced arguments from the guys who posted replies, and winemakers..... your "ramblings" made perfect sense! :D

Thanks Oldman, very interesting subject.

[Oldman]

My concern is that the average gun owner has neither the capability of assessing the need for deadly force nor the gun handling skills to apply that force and is just as likely to injure themselves or even worse an innocent bystander.  8) 

Tom there is merit in what you say without education.  Here there is a pretty tough gun course a person has to take before they can apply for a  permit to carry a gun.  Part of that course is demonstrating how to not only correctly handle your gun but a minimum of 100 live fire exercises.  Next, there are defense classes as well.  Permits are not just handed out. Plus there is one heck of a background check.

People that go after permits are serious folk who don't take this lightly. They value life. They don't go around flashing their guns or making threats to people. They have learn what their effective killing range is. They shoot at least once per month if possible. A few months back I took Mother to the range. She is 76 and at 25 yards she was grouping with a mid-size 9mm 4 inches. She knows her effective range is 25 yards. At 50 yard she knows her group is to wide.

As for the rest of the world that does not go this route then you are quite correct. An innocent bystander may very well get hurt. However, this does not give anyone the right to ban or remove my Right to own and carry a firearm, and yet every time an innocent bystander is hurt or killed there are folks who want to do just that.  As if that action would stop the problem.

How far would these folks go in removing my Rights? Well let's take a look at what is currently happening in England where guns are not allowed unless air power.
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing. What is next? Forks? This is not a perfect world by any means, and it never will be. Until it is I demand the Right to defend myself with whatever it will be: a gun, a knife or a fork.

There is a kid of 19 down the street from me who has been shot 4 times. Has only one lung now, and yet he was caught a couple of weeks back chasing down another young man with a gun in his hand.  It does not take the smartest person in the world to know that if he was coming at them with a gun in his hand that he was not going to stop and just say hello.

Last year due to Katrina it was the folks who could not defend themselves that paid a terrible price.

Olds

[TomG]

Olds,

I have to confess to having a minor chink in my otherwise intact bleeding heart liberal armor.  I'm dedicated to the "Gun control means hitting your target" philosophy and a range rat, sometimes competitive, competition shooter, classified  Master in NM High Power Rifle and Expert in 3 gun Bullseye Pistol.  I spend a minimum of 30 hours a month at local ranges either practicing for or shooting matches.  Having watched literally thousands of recreational handgun shooters over a 15 year period, I'm impressed with how few can hit their 18x24" target let alone the 4" bulls eye at 25 yards.  I obviously have no problem with responsible gun ownership and after both local and Federal governments response to Katrina, would suggest that anyone living in a disaster (nature or man made) prone area, arm themselves with what ever is necessary to protect them and theirs.  The lessons to take from that fiasco is that Brownie really didn't do a "heck of job", law enforcement , when you need it, is nonexistent and that tax paying, law abiding citizens may have to temporarily protect themselves against the "forces of evil".

Bottom line: I'm 100% for keeping child safe arms in the house, but think routinely having a loaded gun in either your car or pocket is a prescription for tragedy.

[icerat4]

I know it will never happen but i wish there were no guns :(.To many of my friends have died because of them.I will never forget them.Its one thing to protect your self.And another to shoot people for fun and then see what happens.By all means protect your selfs and family there are way to many nut bags out there.Its the other side of this conversation that needs to be addressed.People who should not have guns and do.Just my opinion .God bless and be with my friends god rest there souls.RAT OUT.

[Oldman]

Master in NM High Power Rifle and Expert in 3 gun Bullseye Pistol.  I spend a minimum of 30 hours a month at local ranges either practicing for or shooting matches.

Wow Tom I'm impressed.  I will never be in your class of shooter. The best I can seem to get is 4 inches at 75 yards with an iron site.

Icerat4 I agree with you on all points.  The last thing at my age I want to do is see another person in my sights.  That is way it has been over 30 years since I picked up another weapon.

There is a thread on another site that I jumped into. It is concerning  H.R. 1415. You all might want to take a few and read this thread if you are concerned about your rights.

Trust me when the big one hits, 911 does not work and the bad guns have auto 30 to 60 or 100 round C-mags you will wish that you had something more than a 6-shooter.

Ten years ago I would have called myself Chick Little. Today I don't
Olds

[coyote]

ICERAT4 and all the good folks in this topic, I think this is as plain as it can be said.

GUNS CAUSE DEATH THE SAME WAY FLIES CAUSE TRASH.

                                                          COYOTE

[TomG]

GUNS CAUSE DEATH THE SAME WAY FLIES CAUSE TRASH.

And as Olds says; "If flies are outlawed, only outlaws will have flies." :o

[MWS]

http://forum.bradleysmoker.com/index.php?topic=2228.0

Olds, I remember a similar posting from last year titled "We Are Now The Shoot First State".

[coyote]

Olds,
      Maybe the next to the last thing I want to see is someone in my sights.
But without a doubt the very last thing I would want is to be seen in someone -elses sights.
              Remember:He who waits last to shoot will be to busy wiping his own
              blood to ever squeeze the trigger.

[Oldman]

mws,

I got to admit that there have not been the crazies shooting people up as much as I thought when that law was first pasted.  I know of one in my area, and that fool is in jail.

[TomG]

There you go Manx,
I bet you thought we were just a bunch of beer swilling ex-colonists sitting around watching Bisquettes go up in smoke ??? ??? ???