How not to claim self defense when using a gun.

[Stormdash]

I know. Both are insane. Violence should only be permissible as a last resort if you can't escape. Get out, run away, call the cops. There is no need to risk any civilian lives. You have insurance, cops are trained to handle it.

Free people should not be under a legal duty to be what a rabbit is to a dog, sorry. It should be criminals who get that they are risking their lives trying to prey on others.

[Mormolyce]

so much ignorance its overwhelming how can people become this ignorant on something simple like how gravity works

*Dies laughing*

Oh god are you really Australian?

I apologise on behalf of my country, internet.

[Roxinius]

And you should go to prison for manslaughter because there was no reason to shoot me unless I was actually threatening your life. Any violence against an other person, unless they are about to hurt you at that very instant, should be punished harshly by the law.

You breaking into my house through a locked door is a direct threat to mine and my family's life if someone does this they leave with a few extra holes in them in a bag end of story

[Dystemper]

I remember some years ago a story in Iraq near Fallujah (sp) were the insurgents started firing straight up into the air in celebration. Something like 10 of them were killed when the rounds fell back down lol

[Xeones]

Free people should not be under a legal duty to be what a rabbit is to a dog, sorry. It should be criminals who get that they are risking their lives trying to prey on others.

I'm not a fan of living in a place with no law and order personally. There are places that exist in a state of near anarchy if you really do want to live in a place where you can use your gun to resolve all your problems.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

I'm not sure about your state or area, but the driving test I took wasn't thorough at all. I don't think those exams are really deterring anything, considering that driving deaths are so very very very high. Thats just a poor comparison. You don't even need to do this to buy a car or own one... just to "legally" drive on public roads... something that you may never even be checked for unless you speed etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I already cited a source saying the terminal velocity of a bullet fired straight up into the air is enough to injure a person upon returning to Earth, depending on the bullet being used. You ignored it.

I mean, let me be clear, I am giving you these opportunities because you are making it quite apparent you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. Yes, terminal velocity exists. No, it doesn't mean what goes up doesn't come back down. No, it doesn't mean a bullet fired into the air can't hurt someone. It simply limits the speed, but since the speed is still fast enough for the bullet to have penetrative ability, your objection to the basic concept that was asserted is unwarranted.

Honest question, how often does this even happen?

[TITAN308]

I'm not a fan of living in a place with no law and order personally. There are places that exist in a state of near anarchy if you really do want to live in a place where you can use your gun to resolve all your problems.

This is complete hyperbole and completely out of context in this discussion, nor did anyone allude at any point in this thread that a gun, per your own words, should be used to resolve "all problems".

I don't use this very often, but I'll make an exception in this case ---->

[zorkuus]

because arguing with someone this ignorant is the same as trying to prove there is no god it becomes pointless

you can research what Terminal Velocity is if you are interested in learning how gravity on Earth works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

Whether or not a falling bullet can kill/harm a person, you still can't throw it as fast. So calling BS on that one.

[nextormento]

[video]

Could be staged. They need to leave Brian Cox inside to be sure.

[WskyDK]

Hopefully she faces criminal charges for firing her weapon into the air, the fucking moron.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

As I said in the next post, it was a loose comparison. I'm not suggesting we copy and paste the system.



How often does what happen? A stray bullet fired recklessly into the air hurts or kills someone? Rarely, but more often than it should, given that there's no valid purpose to doing so in the first place. A bullet is fired precisely straight up into the air (I wouldn't say 90° because straight is straight, regardless of how horizontal the ground is under you)? Probably almost never. How often a bullet fired into the air eventually comes back down? Every time because I don't think there's a gun powerful enough to fire a bullet at escape velocity. Do any of these things justify his pitiful objection to the assertion? No.

HAha I knew they always come down, but I didn't know how often it actually causes injury or death. Its obviously a dumb thing to do.

[Stormdash]

I'm not a fan of living in a place with no law and order personally. There are places that exist in a state of near anarchy if you really do want to live in a place where you can use your gun to resolve all your problems.

I didn't describe a lack of law and order. The right of self defense including deadly force is an affirmation of law and order -- the law that ordinary law abiding people are not prey animals, that enemies of decency that want to try to prey on them do so at their own peril, and that the law will protect those who legitimately defend themselves from it.

Shouldn't it be as scary, like viscerally life-and-limb frightening to someone, to contemplate a carjacking or an armed robbery or home invasion burglary as it is for most people to contemplate, say, skydiving? Or base-jumping? "Extreme" sports in general? Climbing into a bear or lion enclosure at the zoo? the sense of fear that only comes from things people do that could get them killed, right then and there? That's the best disincentive there is to actually ever doing it, not the fear of possible future arrest or prosecution.

[Trickname]

My guess on the thought process.

'I'll shoot a gun into the air because that's what they do in the movies! if these guys each pull a gun on me I definitely wont hesitate, hell I'll probably take them both down with one shot then come up with some witty one-liner!'

[Azadina]

It's amusing because you guys seem to end up having to pay the same even if the law, for whatever reasons, avoid it directly being linked to ID cards.

USA: Free ID Cards (because laws/constituation/whatever), repeated 5 year payment for driver's license
EU: Free permanent driver's license, repeated 5 year payment for ID card

To me that comes across as if they tried to get you guys to pay up after all, circumventing the law to get you to pay.

I wouldn't call 2300 euros for mandatory driving lessons and class room "free". Or 15 years duration permanent.

[zorkuus]

bullets are not aerodynamic unless they have the spin from the gun

a falling bullet has lost that energy

if bullets were aerodynamic it would be another story

It still falls faster than you can throw it.

[Torgent]

It still falls faster than you can throw it.

Bruh, what he meant by "I can throw it faster than gravity" was: "Shut up".

[TwoNineMarine]

Yeah warning shots are stupid.

Also the Castle Doctrine is excellent and every state needs to have it. Of course shooting someone running from your home is illegal. But being allowed to defend yourself in your own home just makes sense.

[Stormdash]

Most people don't really understand what the Castle Doctrine actually is -- all it does is establish a legal presumption, a rebuttable presumption, that someone in their home is in reasonable fear of their life when someone is in their home illegally. It's not carte blanche, because it can be rebutted with evidence. It doesn't change the essential parameters of the use of force/justifiable deadly force right, it just says that the one specific element is initially assumed to be satisfied when one is facing an intruder in their home.

[TwoNineMarine]

True. But consider this following scenario:

I live in Canada.. watching the news one day I get really really mad with the US because of "foreign policy reason #23" and decide they need to be taught "a lesson". Under current laws and weapon regulations, I could go to Toronto, board a plane to Phoenix, go to a gun show, buy whatever firearms I decide are necessary, then drive to wherever to commit mass assault.

At least with licencing you could MOSTLY monitor and control WHO is getting weapons and that they have SOME sort of proper training with them.

You understand you are completely wrong right?

Like completely and totally wrong.

[Elba]

Guess you better call the police on me then? lmao

Can you give me your information and the number of your local sheriff's department?

Free people should not be under a legal duty to be what a rabbit is to a dog, sorry. It should be criminals who get that they are risking their lives trying to prey on others.

Being free does not give you the right to be a vigilante. Law enforcement is handled by the police a for a reason.

No. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my safety, they're dead. If someone has chosen to go out of their way to threaten my life/safety, their life is now automatically worth less my own and deserve what's coming.

You breaking into my house through a locked door is a direct threat to mine and my family's life if someone does this they leave with a few extra holes in them in a bag end of story

Somebody being in your house is not a threat to your safety. If they physically attack you or your family then your safety is threatened.

Their life is worth just as much as yours and any other human's on earth. You being scared for no reason does not mean you get to murder people.

Most people don't really understand what the Castle Doctrine actually is -- all it does is establish a legal presumption, a rebuttable presumption, that someone in their home is in reasonable fear of their life when someone is in their home illegally. It's not carte blanche, because it can be rebutted with evidence. It doesn't change the essential parameters of the use of force/justifiable deadly force right, it just says that the one specific element is initially assumed to be satisfied when one is facing an intruder in their home.

And that fear is not reasonable at all. Just walk away. If you stay you are endangering yourself on purpose if there is any actual danger.