Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2985013
when is the last time you have even heard of an average citizen trying to be the "hero" by pulling out his gun and killing a SUSPECT. I sure can't b/c most people are not stupid enough to do it or know what the consequences are. I CHALLENGE you to look up a law still in effect today, where it states that a armed citizen can kill a SUSPECT without any recourse, WITHOUT claiming self-defense.
Remeber everyone is innocent until proven guilty even while in the act of committing a crime.
Oregon Revised Statutes, look it up if you wish.
161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
No claim of self-defense, not necessary. You can use deadly force in defence of another, even shooting him in the back if you believe he's about to shoot someone else. Oregon is not the only state
And I'll even throw in 161.215 & 161.219
161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2984936
Why do you always have this liberal/conservative argument? Why is everything you don't agree with a 'liberal issue' or a 'liberal problem'? Seems like in this scenario, you're making a lot of assumptions. Do you actually know Alabama law regarding shooting someone? You live in Houston, you yourself said in some other gun debate you couldn't just 'blow someone away' without just cause. Your logic makes no sense. Take about nauseating.
Let's look at this Alabama incident. You make this big talk that if you'd been there, the guy would've been dead in 5 seconds by you 'blowing his head off'. So a hoard of policemen hit the scene and hear massive gun fire. They see this nut job whose already capped 5 or 6 people, aiming his gun at another victim. You are standing there with your weapon drawn, ready to take the situtation into your own hands. How are the police supposed to know who the nut job is? You got some big sign on you that says 'Law Abiding Concealed Weapon Holder. I'm The Good Guy."? You could be one of the shooters as far as they know. Why do you think you have the legal right to shoot someone if they are not threatening your life directly? If this guy had his back to you shooting at someone else, and you shot him dead in the back, you think you have the right to do this? And it's hilarious that you think that you could shoot this guy, put your gun back in your holster, then stand there and say "I dunno" when the cops asked what happened. Think maybe they'd do some ballistic reports to see what bullet killed the guy? You got proof you shot the guy in self defense? Sorry, but I've seen this scenario come up before on the news, and the 'good guy' got prosecuted for murder. He didn't get some heroes medal or pat on the back. What you call liberal minded, I call common sense.
R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y
The beautiful thing about most Concealed Carry laws is you have to go though class before getting the permit. They are taught the responsibility that goes along with the permit.
You never pull a gun with the police present unless asked to which about never happens so...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2985040
Give me a break. You live in some real large fantasy world. You're actually going to sit there and say that in every scenario where there's multiple individuals with guns drawn in a shooting spree like this one in Alabama, the cops are gonna know who the good guy is? Are you for real? How exactly do they know? What's the 'tell sign'? Please oh please tell me and every police officer in this country how they can ascertain this by just looking at two or three people holding guns drawn. Talk about someone who watches too much TV.
You need to open your horizons and read the newspaper more often. Go talk to some REAL police officers and ask them how they can tell.
Now you bring a 'what if?" about abortion to the debate? What has that got to do with this? What if a giant meteor hit us tomorrow? Should we stop worrying about ANYTHING because it MIGHT happen? Listening to your responses makes me glad I have a liberal way of thought. If I thought like you, I'd blow MY head off.
Well since we are making up wild what if scenarios to prove our "point" I'll go out on a limb and say, maybe the same guy all 15 other guys are pointing the gun at...
But lets face it, if 3 or 4 chl guys have a gun pulled on one gunman that one gunman is either going to A) be shot or B) put his gun down. And if a standoff occurs there will be little doubt who is pointing the gun at who. When the cops show up.
But once again, you result to insults. And completely fail to show any time your "common" scenario is played out in real life...
and btw I've spoke with real police officers, deputies, federal agents, and state troopers on the subject. I've yet to run across someone who advocates anything close to gun control. Other than you shouldn't let felons buy guns...
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2985085
Two points...
First; over 200 rounds in over an hour long shooting spree? What was he using, an "automatic" muzzle loader?
Second; Talk about a mess??? What was what took place, a mess, right?
I'm beginning to think that it was a semi auto. I have yet to see it referenced anywhere besides the link from the liberal as an automatic. And that would have been splashed everywhere if it were.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2985013
Remeber everyone is innocent until proven guilty even while in the act of committing a crime.
It amazes me that you will quote Constitutional rights here but ignore others.
You can pick your nose and your friends but you cant pick which parts of the Constitution suit you and ignore the rest.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2985320
It amazes me that you will quote Constitutional rights here but ignore others.
You can pick your nose and your friends but you cant pick which parts of the Constitution suit you and ignore the rest.
That concept isn't in the constitution at all...
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/post/2985328
That concept isn't in the constitution at all...
Not verbatim, you are correct. Due Process and speedy trial by an impartial jury, are however in the Constitution, 5th & 6th Amendment respectively.
The words "innocent until proven guilty" didn't show up really until ~1800 but the concept has generally been regarded as included in common law. It became a fundamental principle in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A good essay on it can be found here: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338 http:///forum/post/2985013
when is the last time you have even heard of an average citizen trying to be the "hero" by pulling out his gun and killing a SUSPECT. I sure can't b/c most people are not stupid enough to do it or know what the consequences are. I CHALLENGE you to look up a law still in effect today, where it states that a armed citizen can kill a SUSPECT without any recourse, WITHOUT claiming self-defense.
Remeber everyone is innocent until proven guilty even while in the act of committing a crime.
The NRA does a good job documenting the armed citizen. The Leftist press does not.
It happens quite often JP.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/
"Two armed robbers broke into the Ville Platte, La. home of Kaninsky Larnette. After robbing Larnette, the criminals took Larnette at gunpoint to the home of his girlfriend, Nedra Gallow. As Gallow opened the door, the armed criminals ordered her to the floor and one hit her with his gun. Gallow’s mother, who was also at the home, began to scream. The two criminals pushed down Gallow’s mother, who distracted them long enough for Gallow to retrieve her gun. Gallow confronted the armed men with her gun drawn and told them to leave. Larnette then began struggling with one of the armed criminals. Gallows fired at the struggling criminal, striking and killing him.
The remaining armed criminal , as well as an accomplice who planned the robbery , were found by the police up and placed on $500,000 bail. Gallows said of her armed defense, “I hated to do it. But I had to.” (The Associated Press, Ville Platte, La. 03/06/09)"
Sounds like 2 lives saved ( at least).
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2985013
when is the last time you have even heard of an average citizen trying to be the "hero" by pulling out his gun and killing a SUSPECT. I sure can't b/c most people are not stupid enough to do it or know what the consequences are. I CHALLENGE you to look up a law still in effect today, where it states that a armed citizen can kill a SUSPECT without any recourse, WITHOUT claiming self-defense.
Remeber everyone is innocent until proven guilty even while in the act of committing a crime.

Here you go JP. From the NRA, not the leftist "Free Press".
The Springfield News-Sun, Springfield, Ohio 01/06/09
State: OH
American Rifleman Issue: 1/8/2009
A 93 year-old homeowner in Springfield, Ohio heard a man knocking on his door shortly before 8:30 p.m. The homeowner went to the door and told the man to leave. Undeterred, the man entered the home through the unlocked back door. The homeowner noticed the intruder was inside his house and retrieved his gun. The homeowner confronted the intruder and once more told him to leave. The intruder instead walked towards the homeowner, who fired, striking the criminal. The intruder was rushed to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries. No charges have been filed against the homeowner.
My Fox Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio 10/27/08
State: OH
American Rifleman Issue: 10/30/2008
A thief armed with a knife entered the Cleveland Aviary pet shop, in Ohio, with hopes of emptying the store’s cash register. Once inside, the criminal threatened the clerk on duty with his knife pointed at the clerk’s throat. The 86-year-old owner of the shop was in the back of the store, and upon hearing the commotion, grabbed his gun. The owner came out of the back room and asked the thief to leave. When the thief refused, the owner fired, striking the criminal in the chest. The criminal died soon after on the front steps of the pet shop. The shop owner’s daughter later said the shop had been the target of attempted robberies before, which spurred her father into arming himself. “It’s sad, but he had to do what he had to do,” she added.
The Columbus Dispatch, Columbus, OH, 07/01/06
State: OH
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2006
Police said a carryout restaurant employee was restocking shelves and cleaning after hours when two masked burglars entered the store by breaking a lock off a security gate and shattering the glass of the front door. Hearing the ruckus, the employee, armed with a handgun, went to investigate. When one of the intruders confronted him with a crowbar, he shot him once in the upper chest, killing him. The dead man's accomplice fled, but police apprehended him two blocks away. The suspect was charged with murder for committing a felony in which an accomplice was killed, and with aggravated burglary.
NewsChannel5, Cleveland, OH, 03/07/06
State: oh
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006
A 75-year-old grandmother had problems with people trying to break into her home, which is why she bought a small pistol she fondly calls "the peacekeeper." So she was ready when, according to police, two teens came looking for trouble. The burglars could not see the woman, but with the assistance of a mirror, she observed them breaking into her door while she tried to dial 9-1-1. Once inside, the thugs found themselves face-to-face with the woman's pistol, and one look was all it took for them to flee. Police caught up with the suspects after a brief pursuit.
The Vindicator, Youngstown, OH, 11/01/05
State: oh
American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2006
George Swita, who served in Gen. Patton's Third Army in World War II, brought back a German Luger that was on a truck full of captured German arms. Though he kept the pistol clean, he no longer used it for target practice. He began carrying it between his home and vehicle, however, after an assailant hit him in the face and stole $60 from his wallet. It was a decision that may have saved his life. Police say an attacker grabbed Swita around the neck as he unlocked his front door. Swita fired two shots, hitting the crook in the head and killing him. "Was I scared? You bet, both times!" Swita said.
Need more? I got thousands.
I especially like the last one where a vet defends himself with his war trophy.
Need more?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2985364
Not verbatim, you are correct. Due Process and speedy trial by an impartial jury, are however in the Constitution, 5th & 6th Amendment respectively.
The words "innocent until proven guilty" didn't show up really until ~1800 but the concept has generally been regarded as included in common law. It became a fundamental principle in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A good essay on it can be found here: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/La...centGuilty.htm

Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2985471
They were SA, an SKS, an AR, a .38, and a shotgun.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/61956/nbc-...st#in-playlist
WOW that sounds like some guns. Still all the "assault" style weapons are much more commonly found in a semi-auto configuration. So it just depends...
Hey Bionic, How about cops seeing the guy carrying 3 rifles 1 shotgun and a 38. That should be pretty easy to spot...
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I am still waiting to here if Bionic would allow his parents to be killed just because the gunman has his back to them.......since this is wrong and all.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2985316
Well since we are making up wild what if scenarios to prove our "point" I'll go out on a limb and say, maybe the same guy all 15 other guys are pointing the gun at...
But lets face it, if 3 or 4 chl guys have a gun pulled on one gunman that one gunman is either going to A) be shot or B) put his gun down. And if a standoff occurs there will be little doubt who is pointing the gun at who. When the cops show up.
But once again, you result to insults. And completely fail to show any time your "common" scenario is played out in real life...
and btw I've spoke with real police officers, deputies, federal agents, and state troopers on the subject. I've yet to run across someone who advocates anything close to gun control. Other than you shouldn't let felons buy guns...
I'm beginning to think that it was a semi auto. I have yet to see it referenced anywhere besides the link from the liberal as an automatic. And that would have been splashed everywhere if it were.
You sit there and trash "liberal-minded people" and reference being nauseated, and you say I'm insulting?
Yea, you're right, if 3 or 4 people with CW licenses confronted a guy like this, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to shoot and kill. But exactly how many people do you know that have permits? What are the odds of that many people being in a situation like this at the very same time? Sorry, but there aren't as many gun fanatics out there than you think. A guy I work with taught the classes for the CWP here in San Antonio. When they first authorized them about 18 years ago, he was filling classes up completely 2 or 3 nights a week. He even had a waiting list at one time. After the initial rush, he said the requests dropped off considerably. He's still licensed to teach the class, but he hasn't taught one in 3 years. Not enough interest.
Open the paper. They said the Alabama nut had two handguns that were licensed. They said the two ASSAULT WEAPONS he was carrying were not, and they weren't sure where they came from. They estimated he got off approximately 200 ROUNDS before he died.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2985860
I am still waiting to here if Bionic would allow his parents to be killed just because the gunman has his back to them.......since this is wrong and all.
Here you go again Darth, arguing just to argue. Try to think with your brain instead of your mouth. No, I wouldn't expect anyone to sit there and let someone physically harm another person. Like I said, you have to have JUST CAUSE to shoot someone. What I was referring to is if you walked into a scenario like this one in Alabama, and you had someone who had his back to you pointing a gun at someone else, how do you know what his intentions are? Is he the nut case, another CW licensed person, or even a plain-clothes cop? If the guy turns around and points the gun at you, then you have JUST CAUSE to shoot him, no matter who the guy is, unless he immediately announces his intentions (I'm a cop, don't shoot! I'm an armed citizen trying to defend myself, don't shoot!)
What's comical is your thinking that I'm against self protection. I own a 9mm, keep it under the bed. It's unloaded, and the magazine is located somewhere else easily accessible to me or my wife. I've taught her how to use the gun, and she knows what to do if the situation would arise. If an intruder were to break into my home, I'd have no qualms whatsoever to shoot the individual if I felt my life, or my families life, was being threatened. But I don't go into it with the attitude of, "BANG, BANG. Halt! Who goes there?" (You know shoot first, ask questions later). I guess I have a little more respect for human life than you do.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2985959
You sit there and trash "liberal-minded people" and reference being nauseated, and you say I'm insulting?
Yea, you're right, if 3 or 4 people with CW licenses confronted a guy like this, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to shoot and kill. But exactly how many people do you know that have permits? What are the odds of that many people being in a situation like this at the very same time? Sorry, but there aren't as many gun fanatics out there than you think. A guy I work with taught the classes for the CWP here in San Antonio. When they first authorized them about 18 years ago, he was filling classes up completely 2 or 3 nights a week. He even had a waiting list at one time. After the initial rush, he said the requests dropped off considerably. He's still licensed to teach the class, but he hasn't taught one in 3 years. Not enough interest.
Open the paper. They said the Alabama nut had two handguns that were licensed. They said the two ASSAULT WEAPONS he was carrying were not, and they weren't sure where they came from. They estimated he got off approximately 200 ROUNDS before he died.
From 2007 to 2008 there was a 8.8% growth in CHL licenses, Just because your friend doesn't have the interest to continue teaching a CHL doesn't mean there isn't strong interest in the sector... Gun owner ship isn't for everyone. And that is fine.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2984875
The automatic gun was used in the Alabama killings the other day. The police said over 200 rounds were fired! In Germany, the kid used a handgun.
If an armed citizen were to shoot the suspect, that citizen would end up in jail for murder, unless the suspect attempted to shoot that citizen. Imagine if every armed citizen drew their guns out everytime this happens, how would the AUTHORITIES know who the bad guy/girl is? Talk about a mess!
It was NOT AUTOMATIC. Please define "automatic".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top