Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Southern Hampshire]

If someone is fleeing, shoot legs.

If someone is fleeing, you don't shoot them at all. They cannot hurt you while running away.

What? Assuming it's a burglary, why would I let someone escape with my property?

I think that's a good stance ^

If someone is attacking or will attack you, shoot to kill
If someone is fleeing, shoot legs
If someone is surrendered, call police

If someone wants to take the life of my gun through legislation, their life will go with my gun.

So what you're saying is that you will murder elected legislators who pass gun control laws you have a problem with. That sounds like terrorism to me.

No, people who come here and try to take it from me. I rarely care what the state says.

[Wallenburg]

That I disagree with. Do you really want police officers to try to kill any suspect, not even necessarily a criminal, deemed to be dangerous?

If you would actually read my post, you would see that I said in situations that call for its use, such as being fired upon. Not "any suspect".

Yes, but you are abstract in when gun use is called for. When should the police shoot? When the suspect fires at them? When it looks like they will fire on them? When it looks like there is a gun within their reach? When they just happen to be black?

[Korva]

Shooting to wound is a myth. If police forces are put in a situation where it is justified to use firearms then yes, the intent should be to kill, not attempt to wound.

That I disagree with. Do you really want police officers to try to kill any suspect, not even necessarily a criminal, deemed to be dangerous?

if the situation is dangerous enough to warrant shooting, then yes that person should be shot (is this not obvious?)

what should not happen is officers shooting people thinking they can merely injure them, because then suspects will be shot and killed at an even greater rate for weaker justifications

If someone is fleeing, you don't shoot them at all. They cannot hurt you while running away.

What? Assuming it's a burglary, why would I let someone escape with my property?

Can't enjoy your flatscreen tv when you are rotting in jail for manslaughter.

[Kernen]

End the shoot to kill vs shoot to wound debate by supporting research in advanced, effective nonlethal weapons. Incapacitate the home invader, suspect, etc., don't kill them on the spot.

Not a single method to date is 100% reliable. Firearms are the most reliable. That's not likely to change any time soon. Even in Star Trek, setting to Stun isn't always effective.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

We don't own them to feel safe, we own them because we like to go out shooting every now and again. I'm more than confident enough in myself that I could subdue someone who breaks into our house, we simply own that many guns because we like them and they're fun to shoot.

[Harpers Ferry]

If you would actually read my post, you would see that I said in situations that call for its use, such as being fired upon. Not "any suspect".

Yes, but you are abstract in when gun use is called for. When should the police shoot? When the suspect fires at them? When it looks like they will fire on them? When it looks like there is a gun within their reach? When they just happen to be black?

No, I am not. They are justified in using force in the same scenarios as with anyone: when their lives are put in danger, or the lives of others. Your obvious baiting on the last example is clearly not in the criteria.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, but you are abstract in when gun use is called for. When should the police shoot? When the suspect fires at them? When it looks like they will fire on them? When it looks like there is a gun within their reach? When they just happen to be black?

No, I am not. They are justified in using force in the same scenarios as with anyone: when their lives are put in danger, or the lives of others. Your obvious baiting on the last example is clearly not in the criteria.

I believe that the fuzzy definition of when a police officer should or should not shoot covers racial discrimination. It has certainly been a factor in police treatment of civilians. My point is, we need a clear and reasonable definition on this matter, rather than letting it slide and saying that police officers won't always be able to follow a concrete code on gun use. I'm not saying anyone here wants to let it slide, I'm just saying that America has let it happen.

End the shoot to kill vs shoot to wound debate by supporting research in advanced, effective nonlethal weapons. Incapacitate the home invader, suspect, etc., don't kill them on the spot.

Not a single method to date is 100% reliable. Firearms are the most reliable. That's not likely to change any time soon. Even in Star Trek, setting to Stun isn't always effective.

That's why I'm saying we should research such technology. The current nonlethal weapons technology is insufficient. We need to make it effective. That may be a little too optimistic, but I'm confident that nobody here can argue that killing someone is better than just incapacitating them.

[Chernoslavia]

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[Kernen]

That's why I'm saying we should research such technology. The current nonlethal weapons technology is insufficient. We need to make it effective. That may be a little too optimistic, but I'm confident that nobody here can argue that killing someone is better than just incapacitating them.

That's not germane to the current status, though. Since they don't exist, and shooting to wound is proven to not work reliably, lethal force remains a necessary option, and we ought not discount it.

[Ifreann]

End the shoot to kill vs shoot to wound debate by supporting research in advanced, effective nonlethal weapons. Incapacitate the home invader, suspect, etc., don't kill them on the spot.

There is no debate. There are people who are wrong and don't realise it and people who are right and trying to correct the former.

[Wallenburg]

That's why I'm saying we should research such technology. The current nonlethal weapons technology is insufficient. We need to make it effective. That may be a little too optimistic, but I'm confident that nobody here can argue that killing someone is better than just incapacitating them.

That's not germane to the current status, though. Since they don't exist, and shooting to wound is proven to not work reliably, lethal force remains a necessary option, and we ought not discount it.

OK, but we should try to eliminate it as soon as possible.

[Chernoslavia]

End the shoot to kill vs shoot to wound debate by supporting research in advanced, effective nonlethal weapons. Incapacitate the home invader, suspect, etc., don't kill them on the spot.

There is no debate. There are people who are wrong and don't realise it and people who are right and trying to correct the former.

Can you be a bit more specific about that?

[Wallenburg]

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

#crazy #epic #revolution #gunnuts

[Bezkoshtovnya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

#crazy #epic #revolution #gunnuts

Or you know, a good example of the preventing of government wrongdoing some people use to support gun rights.

[Chernoslavia]

If someone is fleeing, you don't shoot them at all. They cannot hurt you while running away.

What? Assuming it's a burglary, why would I let someone escape with my property?

So what you're saying is that you will murder elected legislators who pass gun control laws you have a problem with. That sounds like terrorism to me.

No, people who come here and try to take it from me. I rarely care what the state says.

1. If an unarmed burglar is stealing your stuff hold them at gunpoint, don't just shoot them on sight like a maniac.

2. There is a better more peaceful alternative than just shooting at cops confiscating your stuff.

[Chernoslavia]

#crazy #epic #revolution #gunnuts

Or you know, a good example of the preventing of government wrongdoing some people use to support gun rights.

Kind of makes you wonder who they'll support if government were to ever step out of line.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not germane to the current status, though. Since they don't exist, and shooting to wound is proven to not work reliably, lethal force remains a necessary option, and we ought not discount it.

OK, but we should try to eliminate it as soon as possible.

How?

[Arbolvine]

#crazy #epic #revolution #gunnuts

Or you know, a good example of the preventing of government wrongdoing some people use to support gun rights.

Or you know, treason against our republic and use of unnecessary violence where democratic reform could have achieved their goal instead?

[United Marxist Nations]

Or you know, a good example of the preventing of government wrongdoing some people use to support gun rights.

Or you know, treason against our republic and use of unnecessary violence where democratic reform could have achieved their goal instead?

In case you didn't read, it was caused by officers beating the shit out of people who voted against the current gov't, then literally stealing the election.

[Arbolvine]

Or you know, treason against our republic and use of unnecessary violence where democratic reform could have achieved their goal instead?

In case you didn't read, it was caused by officers beating the shit out of people who voted against the current gov't, then literally stealing the election.

Okay, those police officers should have been arrested and--oh crap.

[Chernoslavia]

Or you know, a good example of the preventing of government wrongdoing some people use to support gun rights.

Or you know, treason against our republic and use of unnecessary violence where democratic reform could have achieved their goal instead?

Democratic reform has long been thrown out the window when the corrupt government decided to use violence against it's people. What the armed citizens did was completely justified.

[United Marxist Nations]

In case you didn't read, it was caused by officers beating the shit out of people who voted against the current gov't, then literally stealing the election.

Okay, those police officers should have been arrested and--oh crap.

They weren't going to be arrested because they were doing it on orders of the existing gov't. After the police lost the "battle", the one that shot a black man for voting was arrested and sentenced, but he was the only one.

[La Lus de Vida]

NO, the second amendment shouldn't be repealed. We just need to be educated sooner rather than later about proper gun storage, and usage. Teach us from middle school not only, how to handle and maintain guns, but store them properly for our safety. Teach the elementary kids how to be safe around them. Use them to guard our children. As far as keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people, we can't. Background checks and registration can only do so much. The wrong people will always get their hands on guns sometimes.

[Frenline Delpha]

NO, the second amendment shouldn't be repealed. We just need to be educated sooner rather than later about proper gun storage, and usage. Teach us from middle school not only, how to handle and maintain guns, but store them properly for our safety. Teach the elementary kids how to be safe around them. Use them to guard our children. As far as keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people, we can't. Background checks and registration can only do so much. The wrong people will always get their hands on guns sometimes.

The best argument on this topic. I completely agree with it. Early education could solve so many problems.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Two people (who may or may not even own guns) say "just shoot them," while four people have said that you shouldn't shoot if the individual in question is on the ground or running away.

I'll offer my stance, shoot to wound if they run so that they get arrested, assuming they committed a crime of course. If they surrender call the police and hold them till police arrive, if they attack shoot to kill

Shooting to wound is shooting to miss. If you have reason to shoot, you have reason to shoot to kill. If burglars run away when you confront them, the only shooting you should be doing is with a camera (assuming you've already called the police, and assuming you don't already have a security camera).