How many do you carry?

[tobby4]

As far as pulling a gun on somebody if they were trying to steal my unoccupied car outside my house... I think I would....

After you have one shoved in your face you have a new appreciation for the power of what can do... If you are outside stealing my car, my property then yes I will pull a gun if the threat is there... and if something occurs that even gives me the idea that the situation might escalate, then I would most likely go ahead and escalate the situation.... as mentioned on this thread already, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

 

[fuente]

I understand your point Fuente. If it was on my property then you better believe I'd do something about it. If it was in some unfamiliar area away from my home, then I'd be more cautious to the situation at hand.

cvm I don't think that's how the law reads or is meant to be interpreted.

If someone comes into your house, which is of course your property, AND you feel threatened (which of course, anyone would), then you can use the 'defensive force' to deter the threat. That does not mean 'deadly force'. The law is clearly not written that way..for a reason. Because if you kill the person, and they didn't have a weapon on them, well, you used 'deadly force', which is not protected under the law.

But, if the intruder was in your car, in the process of stealing it, and the car was on your property (has to be your driveway..the street in front of your house doesn't count), but you were NOT in the car, you cannot use 'defensive force'. There is no threat to your life. Property cannot be threatened.

I bring these points up because this is reality, and this is how the lawyers, for better or worse, work the system. And this is why no laws are absolute.

 

[fuente]

As far as pulling a gun on somebody if they were trying to steal my unoccupied car outside my house... I think I would....

That may be unlawful.

After you have one shoved in your face you have a new appreciation for the power of what can do...

Exactly. 2 wrongs don't make a right. This is how society betters itself. Thru restraint.

If you are outside stealing my car, my property then yes I will pull a gun if the threat is there...

Only if the threat is there. If you are inside and someone is stealing your car and you have to run outside, then where's the threat. Call 911.

and if something occurs that even gives me the idea that the situation might escalate, then I would most likely go ahead and escalate the situation....

Better be sure that it WOULD have escalated. If you kill someone who ends up being unarmed, and there are no witnesses who see it your way, you're done.

as mentioned on this thread already, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

heh...I'd rather pay my deductable then be someone's bitch on death row..

My point is to THINK about every situation, and restraint should be the first course of action, especially if you are carrying a weapon.

 

[cvm4]

cvm I don't think that's how the law reads or is meant to be interpreted.

If someone comes into your house, which is of course your property, AND you feel threatened (which of course, anyone would), then you can use the 'defensive force' to deter the threat. That does not mean 'deadly force'. The law is clearly not written that way..for a reason. Because if you kill the person, and they didn't have a weapon on them, well, you used 'deadly force', which is not protected under the law.

But, if the intruder was in your car, in the process of stealing it, and the car was on your property (has to be your driveway..the street in front of your house doesn't count), but you were NOT in the car, you cannot use 'defensive force'. There is no threat to your life. Property cannot be threatened.

I bring these points up because this is reality, and this is how the lawyers, for better or worse, work the system. And this is why no laws are absolute.

Because if I didn't do something about it then I could be the guy that gets his car stolen and then house robbed. Deadly force might not even happen, but I'm sure they'll be scared shitless :wink: I'd rather make sure they know I mean business.

 

[fuente]

Remember that the law does not look at what might happen down the road with respect to your actions in the present.

You using force when a threat is not present to ensure that the thief does not come back and rob your house (I think this is what you are saying) would not fly.

He would be scared though !!

 

[DocLogic77]

Terrific discussion guys. Great links CVM. I'm not a gun lover but I own guns. I do so for the "just in case" scenerios. I grew up with guns and know how to shoot but never became an enthusiast. My understanding of most and probably all state law is that even if a car is parked snug in your driveway you can not shoot the guy breaking into the car. My understanding is that even if someone is breaking in your house, you better wait until they are well in before you shoot. If not you best drag that body back in the house (of course I say that in jest). Me personally, I think anyone that wants to come on your property and take is a possible threat to you or your family's health and well being. I think we should be entitled to protect. The problem for me and my family is that the law doesn't agree with me. The last thing I want or need is to be dropping soap in a prison shower. Could I even get CC in prison??? Tragic. :smile:

 

[PetersCreek]

So if the law states that you will be breaking the law and go to jail if you use your weapon in this instance, then Mr.Creek you CANNOT use your weapon to protect your vehicle.

Jesus Christ in a powder blue leisure suit. Will you, for the love of Pete, go back re-read my posts...and stop misrepresenting my views. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[BkSmoke]

You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that all minor "children" are smaller and/or weaker than all adults. Such is not the case. In any event, entering into a hand-to-hand confrontation isn't adviseable either...unless you're willing to risk a knife to the solar plexus, or something. Taking control of the situation from a distance is the preferred alternative.

This seems to be your view or did someonelse write this statement?
"Taking control of the situation from a distance is the preferred alternative."

You would be violating the law if you pull your weapon from a distance and try to take control of the situation because your life is not being threatened. Quite the contrary, you would actually be viewed as the aggressor.

 

[PetersCreek]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was pointing out the risks of a hand-to-hand confrontation. Control from a distance doesn't have to be in the form of a firearm...it can be when appropriate...but it doesn't necessarily have to be. I have pointedly explained that I was not going to give you a blanket answer to your fuzzy scenario. Yet you insist on incorrectly inferring a viewpoint I did not express. Was it for your own argumentative convenience?

If you're going to quote me in order to illustrate my view, at least use one where I explicitly stated my viewpoint. Here's one you seemed to have ignored:

I will say however, that I would use the appropriate means and amount of force necessary to protect life, limb, and property as I am entitled and/or permitted to do by right and by law.

Note the added emphasis, "by law." For you to suggest that I advocate otherwise is patently incorrect and...well...unwise, to put it mildly.

I don't understand what Mr. Creek and CVM's arguement is then...

From my very early in this part of the thread, my point has been that you've resorted to uninformed, prejudicial stereotypes and inflammatory language in advancing your argument...while disingenuously claiming not to bash anyone's viewpoint. I specifically told you that in no uncertain terms and at least one other person has voiced the same objection...apparently to no avail. I've also tried to illustrate that your philosophy on this situation is overly simplistic and fails to consider a myriad of factors...also, apparently to no avail.

So, it would seem that you're going to be right in your book no matter what and all of us gun-totin', law-breakin', child-killers with huge inferiority complexes will be wrong, no matter what. I'm done with ya.

 

[BkSmoke]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was pointing out the risks of a hand-to-hand confrontation. Control from a distance doesn't have to be in the form of a firearm..

Please tell us how you "Control from a distance without using your firearm" this should be very informative or is that too much of a hypothetical for you to answer, lol.

 

[smokem94]

CVM,
You really make no sense, you say you wouldn't overpower a child but you would point loaded gun at them? My point is that you don't need a gun to deter a child if you are an adult, your sheer size and strength would be enough. The fact that your willing to point a gun at a minor because you are afraid of your premiums going up is insane. A CAR IS A POSSESSION CVM, it can be replaced, a human life cannot!

P.S. I'm not dissing anyones views, I'm stating the obvious which is under no circumstances should 1 human being kill another over a car and an adult should never EVER point a loaded gun at a teenager or a child because they are protecting their car. I always thought that every American already knew this until now.

Do you know how many "children", as you call them (14, 15, 16) KILL people everyday in carjackings? Do you carry a gun? If not why have you posted in this thread? Take your views to the debate forum!
I agree 100% with David, your previous comments were it for me, and the only reason I even had to make this post.

 

[Jwrussell]

Can we please get this crap parted out from this thread and moved to the debate room?

 

[BkSmoke]

Smokem94,
You do not determine where someone can and cannot post a comment although it seems you would like to. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then don't, this is America remember, the same country that gives you the freedom to carry a weapon gives me freedom of speech.

 

[cvm4]

Actually this is a big threadjack from the thread title. It is a debate or it wouldn't have gone on for 4-5 pages that has nothing to do about "how many do you carry?" So, if Eric or David wants to move it, then it does belong in the debate forum. And yea you're in America, but it's a privately owned forum.

 

[AZsteelman]

I don't carry anything but a Blackberry and a pen!

 

[PetersCreek]

iPAQ 2215 and a Rotring Quatro multipen here! :razz:

 

[cvm4]

I don't carry anything but a Blackberry and a pen!

That's too much for me Randy! You're a high-roller! :yes:

 

[CWS]

Credit cards boys. I carry lots and lots of credit cards.eace:

 

[Jwrussell]

Smokem94,
You do not determine where someone can and cannot post a comment although it seems you would like to. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then don't, this is America remember, the same country that gives you the freedom to carry a weapon gives me freedom of speech.

Actually, Brian was pointing out that you've completley threadjacked a discussion and turned it into something that doesn't belong in this particular part of the forum. This is an interpretation of standard online etiquite , if not the rules of this forum, and not a determination of where someone can and cannot post a comment. There is a part of this forum specifically set aside for debate. If you didn't know that before, it's ignorance and forgivable. If you did, you've been trolling, something the admin here, and the members for that matter, don't tolerate. Continue to drag this thread away from what it was meant to be and you you prove you are a troll. Ask the mods YOURSELF to have the parts of this thread dedicated to your debate moved to the correct forum or go their and start another thread and invite people to have a reasoned and rational debate with you. And while you are at it, see if you can't debate without the use of sarcasm and condescension. It's the mark of either a weak argument or a weak mind.

 

[David]

Smokem94,
You do not determine where someone can and cannot post a comment although it seems you would like to. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then don't, this is America remember, the same country that gives you the freedom to carry a weapon gives me freedom of speech.

He may not but I do.

Couple of points...

1. Throw the "freedom of speech" out the window because this is a privately owned board. Eric's house...Eric's rules.

2. I agree that this thread has taken a different path than what the title initially intended it too. As far as I'm concerned, the main question that the author of this thread posted has been answered and this is serving no useful purpose anymore.

You guys are more than welcome to start a new thread in the Debate Room adressing the question that came up in the latter part of the thread. I would suggest that the rules that are stickied in the debate room are reviewed just as a refresher...or maybe for the first time for certain members. :wink:

No need in removing this thread as most of you know the BOTL Staff's stand on censorship but I think that most would agree that it needs a lock and maybe a reincarnation in the correct room if deemed neccessary by someone.

*click...click*