Reality of Gun Ownership

[Xaquin44]

That is especially true here in the communist state of Maryland.

hahahahaha

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

There is another issue. Why should slapping someone be against the law? Sorry, that is just more wimp-ism. Sometimes a kid needs to be slapped or spanked and parents should be allowed to be parents. The social wimps have made parents afraid to be parents and then when the kids get out of control those same social wimps blame the parents for not controlling them. Lunatics are making the laws. You, as a cop, have no choice but to enforce the laws. Of course, as I posted before, far too many cops do not obey the laws, especially the traffic laws.

Good lord.
If you have no other means to "control" your kid besides slapping them, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[smcop]

See, now we're comparing apples and oranges. First there was a burglar breaking into someone's home, now you're talking about some kid stealing candy from the drugstore.

Do I think a minor who commits a minor crime should be executed? Um, duh - obviously not. But that is a far cry from some thug breaking into a house in the middle of the night with the purpose of stealing or injuring the homeowner.

This is one of the problems with crime in this country: people like you who want to paint a willful criminal who robs, rapes or murders as just a kid stealing candy.

No, this is what was said;

Originally Posted by smcop
What is a willful crime against another human being? Telephon misues. Harassment. Simple assault. Strong arm robbery, such as purse snatching. Are these the willful crimes against other human beings where you feel the death penalty is appropriate?

Why not?

Decisions decisions.

A zero tolerance stance toward crime will go a lot further than gun control to eradicate violence in our society. As it stands, recidivism is enormous because there is no penalty for preying on your fellow citizens.

I was talking about minor crimes. Who do you think commit crime? Juveniles account for huge numbers in crime. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Your words, not mine.

 

[vraiblonde]

No, this is what was said;



I was talking about minor crimes. Who do you think commit crime? Juveniles account for huge numbers in crime. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Your words, not mine.

I assumed we were talking about adult criminals and not children.

My bad.

 

[smcop]

You are a typical brainwashed cop. Only cops should have guns, right? That is especially true here in the communist state of Maryland.

Most cops I have seen shoot can't hit the broad side of a barn. The cops use our indoor range. When we come in after their training session, we have chips out of the cinder block walls, holes in the ceiling tiles, and ricochet marks on the floor. No wonder you don't think guns are good.

You need to get out of Calvert County then and get in to a county which is a bit more progressive. There is at least one county in Southern Maryland which trains outside, with dynamic situations, and transitional drills. You don't know as much as you pretend to know. And where did I ever say that only cops should have guns. Just the opposite. In the post you are referring to, I said you shouldn't use a taser, mace, etc. to defend your home. I said I use a gun, perhaps I should have said everyone should use a gun. But defending your home with a gun, and shooting someone who is fleeing or surrendering is in my opinion wrong!

Not only that, the SCOTUS has ruled that cops do not have to come to the aid of anyone if it will put their own life in danger. Yeah. So what are you guys getting paid for? Protect and serve has become harass, take advantage of being a cop to speed, not use turn signals and otherwise break the law.

There you go, your true feelings.

What ever happened to a person's home is their castle? Sorry, but the pansy attitude of liberals has turned the U.S. into a bunch of wimps.

Citizens have no other choice but to protect themselves. The cops can't do it. All cops can do is come in and draw lines around the bodies and put up yellow tape

A person's home is their castle. In any battle, honorable men do not kill a surrendering person. Shooting a guy in the back running away. Is that how you would handle yourself?

 

[smcop]

There is another issue. Why should slapping someone be against the law? Sorry, that is just more wimp-ism. Sometimes a kid needs to be slapped or spanked and parents should be allowed to be parents. The social wimps have made parents afraid to be parents and then when the kids get out of control those same social wimps blame the parents for not controlling them. Lunatics are making the laws. You, as a cop, have no choice but to enforce the laws. Of course, as I posted before, far too many cops do not obey the laws, especially the traffic laws.

Slapping your child for discipline is not against the law. If the parents are afraid, that is because they are ignorant of the law, and buy into the hype that they will be arrested if they "slap" their kids. If you are excessive in your discipline and injure your child, that is a different story.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

But defending your home with a gun, and shooting someone who is fleeing or surrendering is in my opinion wrong!

A person's home is their castle. In any battle, honorable men do not kill a surrendering person.

Oh come off it already
In a vast majority of the scenarios we're talking about, there isn't time to tell someone to surrender. If you yell to someone in another room that you're armed, you're losing a major benefit of the surprise element. Someone armed, in my house, is being shot dead if I get the opportunity.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

You should probably refrain from speaking about this at least until you have experience to know what you speak of.

If we limit discussion to those who only have experience with dealing with an armed burglar in their home, then this is going to be a boring conversation

 

[smcop]

If we limit discussion to those who only have experience with dealing with an armed burglar in their home, then this is going to be a boring conversation

Fair enough, I will retract my post.

 

[vraiblonde]

In any battle, honorable men do not kill a surrendering person.

Surrendering would mean the criminal puts his hands up and submits so that the victim can call the police and have him arrested.

Running out the door to find an easier target is NOT surrendering.

 

[smcop]

Surrendering would mean the criminal puts his hands up and submits so that the victim can call the police and have him arrested.

Running out the door to find an easier target is NOT surrendering.

You have to read all the posts. I also included surrendering by laying down on the ground putting their hands out to their side.

So, you think if the guy surrenders you shouldn't kill him, but if he is running away you should?

So you don't believe in the death penalty for burglary, just killing if they might get away.

This is a bit different from your ealier stance. Maybe you should sit down and think about it some more.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Surrendering would mean the criminal puts his hands up and submits so that the victim can call the police and have him arrested.

Running out the door to find an easier target is NOT surrendering.

Curious.
Can you shoot to wound if the criminal is fleeing, and not face charges? I can't think of an actual scenario of this off hand, but if you were to shoot someone with a birdshot round, or something else that is unlikely to kill them, and they live, can you be charged with assault or something similar? I would personally put this in the legal use-of-force category for a citizen's arrest, to detain the burglar until police arrived, but I'm not sure how the law sees it :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

So, you think if the guy surrenders you shouldn't kill him,

I didn't say that, did I?

So you don't believe in the death penalty for burglary

I didn't say that, either. In fact I said specifically that I have no problem with burglars getting the death penalty.

Let me know when you want to actually read my posts instead of skim and infer.

 

[vraiblonde]

How you can tell when someone realizes they're losing their argument is when they start engaging in hyperbole or picking over non-relevant minutia. Insisting someone holds an opinion that they've never expressed is also a good indicator.

 

[smcop]

Oh come off it already
In a vast majority of the scenarios we're talking about, there isn't time to tell someone to surrender. If you yell to someone in another room that you're armed, you're losing a major benefit of the surprise element. Someone armed, in my house, is being shot dead if I get the opportunity.

The fact of the matter, is that the vast majority of burgulars who hear a homeowner are going to flee the residence. The vast majority of burgulars don't seek to burglarize occupied residences. They are not going to stand and fight. They are cowards, and that is why they are bugulars. They don't have the guts to go out and do robberies where they look their victim in the face.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

They are cowards, and that is why they are bugulars. They don't have the guts to go out and do robberies where they look their victim in the face.

Imagine what they'd do if Maryland said, publicly and often, residents have the right to protect their property.

 

[smcop]

I didn't say that, did I?

Um..yes you did.

Originally Posted by vraiblonde
Surrendering would mean the criminal puts his hands up and submits so that the victim can call the police and have him arrested.

That is your definition, not mine.

Running out the door to find an easier target is NOT surrendering.

I didn't say that, either. In fact I said specifically that I have no problem with burglars getting the death penalty.

Let me know when you want to actually read my posts instead of skim and infer.

If you define surrendering as the suspect putting their hands up so the victim can call the police, well that is certainly contradictory to killing a burgular.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

The fact of the matter, is that the vast majority of burgulars who hear a homeowner are going to flee the residence. The vast majority of burgulars don't seek to burglarize occupied residences. They are not going to stand and fight. They are cowards, and that is why they are bugulars. They don't have the guts to go out and do robberies where they look their victim in the face.

Ok.
I understand that.
But if I do happen to be home, and they start to flee, can I shoot to injure, and then call the police to pick up the scrap (and actually charge the burglar for their crime, instead of me just letting him run away to possibly be armed the next time he breaks into a residence), and will I be charged with something if I do just that?

 

[Larry Gude]

...

can I shoot to injure, ?

Four rules of gun safety:

Treat every gun as if it is loaded

Do not touch the trigger until you are ready to fire

Do not aim at anything you do not intend to destroy

Be sure of what is behind your target

 

[smcop]

Ok.
I understand that.
But if I do happen to be home, and they start to flee, can I shoot to injure, and then call the police to pick up the scrap (and actually charge the burglar for their crime, instead of me just letting him run away to possibly be armed the next time he breaks into a residence), and will I be charged with something if I do just that?

The law allows one to use deadly force from an imminent threat of death or serious injury. You tell me, is someone running away an imminent threat of death or serious injury?

Shooting someone is considered using deadly force.