What an interesting day

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I need to look it up, but there is a law that is something about a crime being commited on a person who is commiting a crime is negated by the circumstances. I read about this law a long time ago and I have since often wondered why it is not used to argue on the side of inflicting violence on a thug in self-defense.
 
PA is about to pass a law where if you are home and an intruder breaks in you can shoot them without question. The second part is if you are in a public place you do NOT have to attempt to flee before you shoot. :rock GOOD!

GOOD! So if you want to commit a murder you just have to invite that person into your house...who's going to know you did?:dunno :clap
 
GOOD! So if you want to commit a murder you just have to invite that person into your house...who's going to know you did?:dunno :clap

You know. You are not impressing anybody with the sarcastic rhetoric. Opposing opinions are critical in order to make sure all sides are considered, but how about actually contributing to the dialogue?
 
Well, the truth is that I am the one impressed with your laws...really amazing and not in the right sense. But if those are the ones you need, good for you. I guess those are the laws you deserve
 
Well, the truth is that I am the one impressed with your laws...really amazing and not in the right sense. But if those are the ones you need, good for you. I guess those are the laws you deserve


So I guess your statement that you were not judging earlier in the thread was an outright lie, then. Am I correct?
 
OK let me understand first. You are in your house and someone breaks in...so you have the right to kill that person without question...did I get it right?

Now let's say you are arriving to your house and find someone getting out with your...let's say...dvd (or PFs)...and you have the right to kill that person without question???

I really didn't understand at all the part in BadMoon's post about being in public, sorry (a matter of language. I'm not an english speaker) (to attempt to flee?)
 
So I guess your statement that you were not judging earlier in the thread was an outright lie, then. Am I correct?



Why say that? I am just saying that if those are the laws you need, it must be for something (high rates of crime or whatever...whatever). I don't like them, but I am not an american citizen to judge if they are necessary or not
 
OK let me understand first. You are in your house and someone breaks in...so you have the right to kill that person without question...did I get it right?

Now let's say you are arriving to your house and find someone getting out with your...let's say...dvd (or PFs)...and you have the right to kill that person without question???

I really didn't understand at all the part in BadMoon's post about being in public, sorry (a matter of language. I'm not an english speaker) (to attempt to flee?)

yes...if you wake up in the middle of the night, or whatever & find someone in your house, you can shoot without charges on you
 
Why say that? I am just saying that if those are the laws you need, it must be for something (high rates of crime or whatever...whatever). I don't like them, but I am not an american citizen to judge if they are necessary or not

OK...I can understand a little better now. You mentioned the language difference. The way you used the word "deserve" in the previous post can be mistaken for judgementalism. My mistake.
 
...and what about the second example?

Ok no problem. Under current law you have to try to attempt to flee if outside of your home and being attacked. Which to me seems dumb. If someone pulls a knife on you and you try to run away what good is that? So under the new proposed law and I always thought it was this way, if someone is attacking you, you do not have to flee. You can put them down right there. Also if it gets to the point where they are attacking you and you can't reach your weapon again whats the point?
 
OK...I can understand a little better now. You mentioned the language difference. The way you used the word "deserve" in the previous post can be mistaken for judgementalism. My mistake.

;) Maybe my mistake. I used "deserved" in the sense of "the laws you need to have", sorry
 
Ok no problem. Under current law you have to try to attempt to flee if outside of your home and being attacked. Which to me seems dumb. If someone pulls a knife on you and you try to run away what good is that? So under the new proposed law and I always thought it was this way, if someone is attacking you, you do not have to flee. You can put them down right there. Also if it gets to the point where they are attacking you and you can't reach your weapon again whats the point?

Maybe that nobody might get injured? Anyways I can understand that depending on the situation attempting to flee would be something dumb as the attacker could just reach you.

I don't know, I just think that the fact that you need laws ,in a certain way, come to the point of giving the citizen more power to "protect" himself by giving him/her the right to even end with the life of the attacker suggests that you have a very serious problem with violence in your country. Something to be seriously considered to solve many other problems afterwards, and analyzing its precedents (antecedents?) could be a great start imo
 
It is unfortunate that we have these issues. There are people who think that if we get rid of guns, the problems would end. I do not think so. And one of the main reasons is that I do not think that the allowance of gun ownership is the sole reason for the crime rate in the United States. I believe that it does contribute, but that it also helps even more than it contributes to the problem.

There are many factors that aggravate the crime rate, in my opinion, and some of them are:

1) Gun laws - Once again, not the main issue, and more good than harm is done with them, but it can not be denied that they do affect it some.

2) Population dispersement - There are areas where there are millions and millions of people packed in to small areas here. This has multiple negative effects where it concerns the crime rate. People generally like their space, so when you bunch too many people too closely together, tempers tend toward heated. Also, many, many crimes are what are called "crimes of opportunity" which means that a person who commits these crimes might not have if they would have had to go out of their way to do it. The more people you put together, the more times that these opportunities are going to present themselves. When this is combined with the anonimity that happens with being a single person in a large groups of people, the temptation to take advantage of these opportunities is heightened.

3) There is not the sense of community that used to exist here. Many, many people refuse to get involved in crimes they see being commites and this emboldens the thugs. The thugs in this country have become bold enough to wear shirts that warn people about helping in their capture. A popular phrase that they use on these shirts is "snitches get stitches".

4) The disparity in socio-economic status - There are very poor people here who are desparate for one reason or another (to feed their family, to support their drug habit...whatever) and being in these metropolitan areas gives them easy access to people who are wealthier (whether a little or a lot).

Now, I am not saying that these circumstances do not exist anywhere else, but look carefully at the other countries' structure and you don't see so many of these things together at the same time. And our own government has, in my own opinion, offered evidence that illegalizing guns will do nothing to change the crime rate. They used that excuse to ban assault weapons, but the statistics they argued did not drop during the 10-year ban.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that nobody might get injured?

I have no worry about hurting someone that intends to do me harm or worse. However, I also would not EVER point a weapon at ANYTHING or ANYONE that I didn't intend to shoot. So if you are staring down the barrel of one of my guns you are getting shot and definitely for good reason. I think you are misunderstanding a bit. People aren't over here blasting away at people. The only people doing that are the criminals. IMO gun laws do nothing to stop these people from obtaining weapons illegally. So you can take away all of our gun rights and all you are doing is taking away weapons from people who intend to use them for what they should be used for. The criminals will still have them because they don't care about the law nor the necessary paperwork it takes to carry and own weapons. So then you have a bunch of criminals with weapons and people who cannot protect themselves.
 
PA is about to pass a law where if you are home and an intruder breaks in you can shoot them without question. The second part is if you are in a public place you do NOT have to attempt to flee before you shoot. :rock GOOD!

We've had that law in Ohio for years. Just make sure you shoot him INSIDE your house so there's no risk of him suing.

Yup, suing. :cuckoo:
 
Back
Top