The gun control people just keep digging!

[Rookie120 0]

Found this article on my old hometown nes channel website. I dont understand how they could be against a law to protect the potential victim for self defense.

Quote

Posted: 09/18/2005 03:56 pm

Michigan - Gun control advocates want to stop Michigan legislators from passing a law allowing people to use deadly force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
The bills were introduced this month in Michigan.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Million Mom March are calling lawmakers in an attempt to keep the bills from getting out of the House Judiciary Committee.

The battle in Michigan over the so-called deadly force legislation is an important one for both sides.


It could open the doors to similar laws across the country, a top priority for the National Rifle Association, or stop the effort in its tracks.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[ryoder 1,590]

I originally lived in IN, and had a CCW. IN & MI had a reciprocity agreement which enabled me to legally carry in MI. Imagine my amazement when I later moved to MI and discovered it was impossible for an MI resident to get a CCW, but MI still allowed IN residents to carry in MI!

MI had the most f***ed up self-defense laws I seen. Pepper spray: illegal. Stun guns: illegal. CCW? Forget it unless you are a cop or a judge. While I was there, the state threatened to shut down a Benton Harbor K-Mart for selling a firearm to a teenager. You know what they really sold? A BB gun! But according to the states goofy-assed laws, a BB gun was a firearm, and subject to all of the same restrictions.

It is so nice to now live in a state that has self-defense laws based on common sense, instead of hysteria.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

It is so nice to now live in a state that has self-defense laws based on common sense, instead of hysteria.

Michigan has lighten up on the CCW laws a lot but now the gun control people want to make people so scared to defend themselves that they wont for fear of being prosecuted.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,118]

>I dont understand how they could be against a law to protect the
>potential victim for self defense.

It depends how the law is worded. If the wording is such that "deadly force is specifically permitted when the victim reasonably thinks his life is in danger" then I'd be all for it - provided that the law doesn't provide for that already. If the wording is such that "deadly force is specifically permitted when someone feels threatened" then I'd be against it - because such a law would lead to more bloodshed.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

It depends how the law is worded. If the wording is such that "deadly force is specifically permitted when the victim reasonably thinks his life is in danger" then I'd be all for it - provided that the law doesn't provide for that already. If the wording is such that "deadly force is specifically permitted when someone feels threatened" then I'd be against it - because such a law would lead to more bloodshed.

That is nice but who determines what "Life in danger" and "Feel threatened"? Would a 15yo talking nasty to me in a parking lot---of course not. Someone swinging a knife around? Maybe. Someone pointing a gun at me? I hope so. A 6'3 300lb man hanking me through my car window. Your damn right I feel my life is in danger. So how would you right the law so if I'm about to get messed up that I stop it before it happens and dont go to jail for it?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,118]

>but who determines what "Life in danger" and "Feel threatened"?

Courts, just like they do now.

>So how would you right the law so if I'm about to get messed up that
>I stop it before it happens and dont go to jail for it?

See the previous post. If your life is in danger, you have the right to protect it. If not, then you don't have the right to kill someone who makes you uncomfortable. As to what the exact language should be - I have no idea. I'm no laywer.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

See the previous post. If your life is in danger, you have the right to protect it. If not, then you don't have the right to kill someone who makes you uncomfortable. As to what the exact language should be - I have no idea. I'm no laywer.

I understand you dont want somebody shooting someone for calling them an asshole or something. But the way the article is written the Brady campaign want to pass a law where the state can prosecute if I shot and killed in self defense. I dont agree with that at all.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,118]

>the Brady campaign want to pass a law where the state can prosecute if
>I shot and killed in self defense.

Not per what you posted. If the article you are posting is correct, gun control advocates want to _stop_ passage of a law that allows self-defense. Like I said, I'd have to see the law they are objecting to - right now deadly force is generally allowed if your life is in immediate danger, so I'm not sure what the law would change.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>the Brady campaign want to pass a law where the state can prosecute if
>I shot and killed in self defense.

Not per what you posted. If the article you are posting is correct, gun control advocates want to _stop_ passage of a law that allows self-defense. Like I said, I'd have to see the law they are objecting to - right now deadly force is generally allowed if your life is in immediate danger, so I'm not sure what the law would change.

I'm assuming what would happen would be the inclusion of a phrase like, "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution if the actor reasonably believed his life to be in immediate danger at the time."

Walt

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

So how would you right the law so if I'm about to get messed up that I stop it before it happens and dont go to jail for it?

Rookie, this is an easy fix. You shoot TO KILL. Never never wound the guy. It's better he's dead then alive. We can all think bullshit self defense laws for that one. If it WASN'T for a ridiculous system, I'd think about just injuring someone to subdue them. However, because of our great justice system, if put in the situation, I WILL kill the perp and not think twice. Dead men don't talk, remember that.

[rehmwa 2]

I hate to say it, but with all the churchy vs anti-churchy threads lately, a good gun thread is a ray of sunshine.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So how would you right the law so if I'm about to get messed up that I stop it before it happens and dont go to jail for it?

Rookie, this is an easy fix. You shoot TO KILL. Never never wound the guy. It's better he's dead then alive. We can all think bullshit self defense laws for that one. If it WASN'T for a ridiculous system, I'd think about just injuring someone to subdue them. However, because of our great justice system, if put in the situation, I WILL kill the perp and not think twice. Dead men don't talk, remember that.

And stating something like that will get you serious time in Federal-pounded-in-the-ass prison.

Any reputable firearms training course (Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, etc) will tell you that you shoot to STOP - to get the person to STOP what they're doing that has put you in fear of your life.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

I hate to say it, but with all the churchy vs anti-churchy threads lately, a good gun thread is a ray of sunshine.

I hate to confirm but, you are right. Somehow.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...You shoot TO KILL. Never never wound the guy. ...

Hmmmmm...I'll have to re-think my idea of splattering his balls all over the place and making him live with it for the rest of his life.

I prefer crippling injuries - a lifetime to think about how he screwed with the wrong guy.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 3,118]

>a lifetime to think about how he screwed with the wrong guy.

Which is fine. But his lawyer will have a lifetime to parade him in front of juries while portraying you as a cross between Charles Manson and Lee Harvey Oswald. You may be able to cripple him for life, but he may well be able to bankrupt you and make your life hell - so make sure you're OK with that.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

You may be able to cripple him for life, but he may well be able to bankrupt you and make your life hell - so make sure you're OK with that.

And don't forget that you even said so in a public forum (dz.com), making it a prior intent.

Folks, this should be reasonably private stuff. What people feel is threatening is hugely different. Someone might, due to their personal makeup and life experiences, feel legitimately threatened by that 15-year-old back talking them. But there will have to be some sort of general guidelines of what is OK, and the more we press to have them exactly set before hand, the more you have to remember (besides "defend yourself and live") in a crisis situation.

So think about it, and plan and act accordingly. Don't posture about it, don't call others stupid for disagreeing.

And be sure you can live with yourself afterwards. Airtwardo posted a good account of what happened when he did have to defend himself and his family. It's not fun, and you don't blow the smoke off the barrel when you're done.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Don't posture about it, don't call others stupid for disagreeing.

sorry, I thought that's the whole point of an anonymous forum, self serving posturing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Not to you Rookie120 but kind of a questions to every one.

If some dude enters my house and is holding a knife or gun I might go to jail for shooting him?


Isn’t that fucking stupid. What the fuck is he/she doing on my property with a weapon?
IMHO if you enter someone’s property with a deadly weapon you give up all your rights unless invited.
What are you supposed to wait till you get hit then shoot back?

where would be a good place for me to check my rights in RI?

Thank you

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[diverborg 0]

Quote

If some dude enters my house and is holding a knife or gun I might go to jail for shooting him?

I think if he's in your house with a gun or knife, you probably won't go to jail for shooting him. However IMO if anyone breaks into your house while you are there, you should have a right to kill them on the spot. How is one suppose to know that a criminal that just broke into your house doesn't have a gun, until its too late. This is a sensitive subject for me because a relative of mine just did 14 years for manslaughter for shooting a guy that broke into his house with a baseball bat. Seems if someone broke into my house and had a baseball bat, that's enough threat on my life to take him out. Turned out the guy was his ex-wifes new boyfriend. I think that's why a jury convicted him, but still the guy broke into my RELATIVE'S HOUSE with intent to HARM him. I just don't get it sometimes. Maybe some people don't consider a baseball bat a dangerouse weapon.

[billvon 3,118]

>If some dude enters my house and is holding a knife or gun I
>might go to jail for shooting him?

No. Most places allow the use of deadly force to protect yourself from a threat to your life, and an intruder threatening you with a gun is a near-certain threat to your life. That usually protects you from criminal prosecution. As AggieDave pointed out, though, it may not protect you from a civil suit.

[JohnRich 4]

There's a lot of guessing going on as to what these proposed laws entail.

Some facts:

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw120920_20050907.htm

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw121457_20050918.htm

The two-bill package would assume that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. It is patterned after a law signed earlier this year in Florida.

The bills also would eliminate the requirement that people who are being attacked have to retreat before responding, as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be.

"This legislation makes it clear that you will not be prosecuted or sued for defending your life, family or property in your own home," Casperson said in a written statement. "This will prevent criminals or their families from suing victims for injury or death."

I haven't heard of Florida becoming the land of wild-west shootouts since they passed their version of this law. The same dire predictions are made every time a state passes a concealed handgun law, and it never comes true. In fact, the dire predictions of the gun-control folks never come true. They're like Chicken Little, crying that the sky is falling, combined with "The Boy who Cried 'Wolf'", whom nobody believed anymore, because he lied so often. It's amusing to watch them repeat their same old failed tactics, over and over again. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but in the end, they lose when the truth becomes known.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

And stating something like that will get you serious time in Federal-pounded-in-the-ass prison.

Any reputable firearms training course (Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, etc) will tell you that you shoot to STOP - to get the person to STOP what they're doing that has put you in fear of your life.

Any wounding of a person will certainly get you sued and could very well get you put in prison. You have much less of a chance going to prison when it's your word against a dead guy's.

Change "Any reputable firearms training course" to "Any IDEALISTIC reputable firearms training course" and you got yourself a deal. Truth is, if you shoot someone, wound them...guaranteed you will be sued and lose. And, a very good chance you go to jail.

Dead men can't sue and can't put you in prison (sure there are exceptions, but far less chance of either happening when you're the only giving a side of the story). I'm not saying you can just get away with popping anyone you want, but when it comes to someone rushing you behind a movie theatre or something like that...it's better to kill him.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Hmmmmm...I'll have to re-think my idea of splattering his balls all over the place and making him live with it for the rest of his life.

I prefer crippling injuries - a lifetime to think about how he screwed with the wrong guy.

Yeah that would be nice, but thanks to the bs justice system, we can't have that luxury. Because yes, crippling the guy for the rest of his life would be a good lesson, but you'll be sitting in jail while he learns it.

[ViperPilot 0]

Diver's post proves 100% what bullshit our justice system is. Jury's are just filled with idiots a lot of the time...as seen in his relative's case. I've read several stories of people killing someone in their own home, and then getting at least sued by the family, if not given prison time. Shame...

[eaglenrider 0]

Any reputable firearms training course (Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, etc) will tell you that you shoot to STOP - to get the person to STOP what they're doing that has put you in fear of your life.