Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Who said you had to prove that you had reasonable fear for your life? That's not how it works. The court asks a jury to decide whether a reasonable person would fear for their life given the facts of the case.

So it's not about proving that the specific person feared for their life, but about showing that a reasonable person would fear for their life in that scenario.

that makes even less sense, impressive

[PhaelixWW]

that makes even less sense, impressive

It makes perfect sense. Whether or not you're able to make sense of it, on the other hand, is a whole different matter.

Honestly, I can't tell if this another language barrier thing, or if you're just trying to be insulting.

The reasonable person standard is a tool that has been used in trial law just about forever. Certainly it's been documented in modern history for nearly two hundred years and is the cornerstone of common law elements of both tort and criminal law.

[Mayhem]

It makes perfect sense. Whether or not you're able to make sense of it, on the other hand, is a whole different matter.

Honestly, I can't tell if this another language barrier thing, or if you're just trying to be insulting.

The reasonable person standard is a tool that has been used in trial law just about forever. Certainly it's been documented in modern history for nearly two hundred years and is the cornerstone of common law elements of both tort and criminal law.

now that´s too much, there ends my english, all i read is bringing up new questions and no answers

i wasn´t aware that reasonable person is a term and not just a type of "common sense" saying

the first paragraph reads as if this is only about situations where the public is at risk and not some individual person foremost not yourself... whatever that means

the second paragraph leaves me with a headache "the reasonable person is not an average or typical person" <- what?!

though as i read it again and again it seems to be used mostly for neglience and not defense

it makes no sense for me to let a jury decide if a reasonable person would´ve felt fear for life if the person in question feared for their life... "remember to shoot only if a reasonable person would shoot"

[Redfingers]

I am not from US, by why wouldn't anyone support it? Like he said you don't use assault weapons to hunt deer or any other animals for that matter.

Because I understand that an assault weapons ban, neither in the 1990 form nor in the latest Feinstein draft form, ban semi-automatic weapons.

The FBI homicide statistics show semi automatic handguns in the clear lead for homicide by weapon followed by revolver handguns followed by shotguns followed by rifles.

Feinstein's draft bill included a specific exception for a mini-14. Go look at her draft. It banned one model of the Mini-14 and excepted another. Same gun. Mini-14 can chamber same magazines as the AR-15, fires the same round and has the same functionality (e.g. one round discharged per trigger pull).

Additionally, any AWP would have virtually no effect on the preexisting gun market, and pre-ban firearms would swim through the market like fishes through the sea. Without a comprehensive buy-back program and systematic reforms to the gun market, you're pissing in the wind.

First step is to restrict semi automatic handguns, but even then, you still have similar functionality with revolver handguns. The cats out of the bag and there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. Realistic gun bans is unfortunately a pipe dream. Rework the tracking and background check system if you want a legitimate reform and check into concealed carry licensing and second hand gun market.

[TwoNineMarine]

@Mayhem

The way I look at it is like this:

If someone is in my house then they have demonstrated intent. Whether to steal or harm my family or myself still isn't clear. But regardless they are up to no good.

If I find them rummaging around trying to take something, or simply walking around in my house, I will aim my weapon right at them (center mass, not at their arm or leg, this isn't the movies) and tell them to lay on the ground or I will fire. If they run away or comply I won't shoot them. But, if they come at me, then I will fire.

Because at that point they've demonstrated intent to hurt my family or myself.

[Mayhem]

@Mayhem

The way I look at it is like this:

If someone is in my house then they have demonstrated intent. Whether to steal or harm my family or myself still isn't clear. But regardless they are up to no good.

If I find them rummaging around trying to take something, or simply walking around in my house, I will aim my weapon right at them (center mass, not at their arm or leg, this isn't the movies) and tell them to lay on the ground or I will fire. If they run away or comply I won't shoot them. But, if they come at me, then I will fire.

Because at that point they've demonstrated intent to hurt my family or myself.

see that´s the issue here, who´s able to prove that he wasn´t coming at you?

[Tinykong]

see that´s the issue here, who´s able to prove that he wasn´t coming at you?

This is why autopsies are conducted.

[rhandric]

see that´s the issue here, who´s able to prove that he wasn´t coming at you?

See, there's this whole thing called forensic evidence...

[Mayhem]

This is why autopsies are conducted.

autopsies can show if someone was moving towards another person?

[Tinykong]

autopsies can show if someone was moving towards another person?

Potentially. It will also be able to tell whether the person was shot in the front or back.

[Mayhem]

Potentially. It will also be able to tell whether the person was shot in the front or back.

potentially? you have no idea what you´re talking about right?

no shit, they can show if someone was shot in the front or back, well yeah they can also tell if someone was lying on the ground, or sitting/kneeing, but that certainly wasn´t what i was asking

they can´t tell if someone was moving towards another person, they can tell to a degree in what position the person was while being shot at, thanks to the angle of the wound and the canal the bullet left behind

[Tinykong]

You're acting like they can't tell based on crime scene analysis and autopsies where or not a person was moving when they were shot.

Please, continue to engage in arguments from ignorance.

[Deleted]

autopsies can show if someone was moving towards another person?

You they cant but analyzing blood splatters can.

[Svifnymr]

see that´s the issue here, who´s able to prove that he wasn´t coming at you?

Lacking forensic evidence, they will side with the person that is NOT breaking into a house...

I understand the entire "burglary shouldn't be a death sentence!" stuff, and the desire to paint gun owners as if they're looking to kill someone, but it still seems to remove completely the idea that there would be no need for a confrontation if the guy just didn't break into the house.

[rhandric]

Lacking forensic evidence, they will side with the person that is NOT breaking into a house...

I understand the entire "burglary shouldn't be a death sentence!" stuff, and the desire to paint gun owners as if they're looking to kill someone, but it still seems to remove completely the idea that there would be no need for a confrontation if the guy just didn't break into the house.

Didn't you know it's the homeowners obligation to avoid the confrontation, rather than the would-be burglar's obligation to...you know, not break in?

[TwoNineMarine]

see that´s the issue here, who´s able to prove that he wasn´t coming at you?

With that mindset you certainly are painting all gun owners in the light that we call want to murder everyone and everything with our guns.

I don't know shit about forensic science so I can't speak to that. But I imagine they can get a pretty good clue of what happened based on any injuries incurred.

Going into it thinking the homeowner lured the home invader there in with the intent to kill him/her is just wrong. I don't understand why people get so up in arms about people defending themselves and their families in their own home. Hell people on here get up in arms about people defending themselves in their homes after the person has attacked or charged at them. Makes no sense to me.

[Mayhem]

You're acting like they can't tell based on crime scene analysis and autopsies where or not a person was moving when they were shot.

Please, continue to engage in arguments from ignorance.

ah, now it´s crime scene analysis... it´s not argument from ignorance when i´m working in that field, autopsies can´t tell if someone was moving towards you while being shot

it´s a snapshot, not a series of happenings

- - - Updated - - -

You they cant but analyzing blood splatters can.

you´d have to be one lucky or unlucky bastard to find something definite

- - - Updated - - -

Lacking forensic evidence, they will side with the person that is NOT breaking into a house...

I understand the entire "burglary shouldn't be a death sentence!" stuff, and the desire to paint gun owners as if they're looking to kill someone, but it still seems to remove completely the idea that there would be no need for a confrontation if the guy just didn't break into the house.

that wasn´t the point, this started with rights and laws that obviously go against them

- - - Updated - - -

With that mindset you certainly are painting all gun owners in the light that we call want to murder everyone and everything with our guns.

I don't know shit about forensic science so I can't speak to that. But I imagine they can get a pretty good clue of what happened based on any injuries incurred.

Going into it thinking the homeowner lured the home invader there in with the intent to kill him/her is just wrong. I don't understand why people get so up in arms about people defending themselves and their families in their own home. Hell people on here get up in arms about people defending themselves in their homes after the person has attacked or charged at them. Makes no sense to me.

it´s a difference if you´re defending your own life with certainty that it´s at risk and defending your tv from getting stolen

[TwoNineMarine]

@Mayhem. I get that. But people should (hopefully) know that if you are in someones house, uninvited, especially in the middle of the night, that chances are people will defend themselves.

The sympathy people have for criminals amazes me.

[Mayhem]

@Mayhem. I get that. But people should (hopefully) know that if you are in someones house, uninvited, especially in the middle of the night, that chances are people will defend themselves.

The sympathy people have for criminals amazes me.

don´t mistake right to life with sympathy for criminals, i´m now for 10 years doing everything i can to solve crimes...

what you get when people assume life threatening circumstances when they commit a crime is that they will prepare for those situations, of course this isn´t solving crime at all and nothing at this point solves crime wether you´re defending yourself or not, wether you have the means or the law on your side is not solving crime rates, that´s another story

but making it even more dangerous for everyone involved certainly isn´t helping the situation at all, quite the opposite

you have to work on the situation at hand that´s becoming out of control and on the issues that leave people with no choice but turning criminal

[TwoNineMarine]

I agree we need to work on the various reason that people turn to crime. That is a big wide spread topic though.

But people need to understand that if you break into someones house, anywhere in the world, that it may end very poorly for you.

Whether the home owner uses a gun, a bat, a knife, anything to defend themselves, they should have that right. If the criminal runs off then so be it. But when people defend killing a criminal who comes at you once they are in the home, that amazes me.