just a heads up

[Blazin]

Restricting law abiding citizens with more laws does no good for society--only does good for people who dont care about the law.
Very well put!

[VileZambonie]

every U.S. citizen atleast 21 yrs old can carry and should carry. Crime rates will decrease if that happens. 

Not sure I agree with this one little bit. My best friend was shot in the head and killed by someone who lost his temper. With the amount of people who drink, get into domestics, argue over parking spaces, lines at dmv, the wrong order at Mcdonalds etc...yeah let's reduce the amount of knuckleheads who don't need to be carrying.

[Lt.Del]

yep the world today is full of knuckleheads.  I just can't stand to see people complain they can't do anything but be helpless victims. Society today thinks everyone else should do everything for them, even count on others to defend them.  We are becoming a helpless society who can't think for themselves.  And, criminals love that.  Sorry, going on a rant again. I need to stop doing that.   

There will be those who's testosterone increases because of something he may be carrying, then do stupid stuff, but, i still say crime rates will decrease when the criminals' advantage is equalized. Their easy prey is just too easy for them right now.  If more carry, the criminals will need to find a new career or have a deathwish.    Perhaps it is I with a pipedream.  I do wish there were more good guys carrying.  Call it 20 yrs in my career, but, I can't stand to see criminals get free reign of the streets-- Maybe I've been trained too well and have the right mentallity for what i do, but I hate criminals with a passion-people need to stand up to them.   

[thirsty]

I've always said that we don't need anymore gun laws what we need is tougher laws for the criminals. For example: What is going to happen to the criminal from the first post? The thief that grabbed it and ran like a coward, then instead of taking what might be coming to him for being a cowardly thief he tries to kill the man. I bet he will go to jail for a little while then get out and still think he is a tough guy and repeat the process. That was a violent crime that needs severe punishment to ensure it won't happen from that coward again. In my mind I wish the marine drew his weapon at the same time and removed the thief from the gene pool permanently. Then again the way some courts work he probably would be considered a criminal too.
I know someone that had that happen. He went to visit his girlfriend. They notice out the window that somebody was getting in his truck. She calls the police, he goes out to stop the guy. When he got to his truck the thief had his hands on his deer rifle taking it out of the gun rack. When he grabbed him the guy tried to get away. While he was trying to keep him there until the police show up they start fighting. The thief looses. He thought that he did good keeping him there until the police showed up and arrested the scumbag. He didn't loose his gun, the bad guy got arrested right at the scene of the crime. Well he ended up in court paying out a settlement because he used excessive force and to top it off he lost his guns because they said it was a violent crime against the thief. The thief got let go with conditions of good behavior.
End Rant

I just think the punishment should be for the criminal and not the weapon used. In the case of guns it would directly effect someone like me with no criminal record that owns, uses, carries firearms.

[Lt.Del]

I agree about removing that scumbag from the human gene pool.
I would never be afraid of shooting someone if I knew I, or some innocent person, was in iminent danger of severe injury or death. This is what defense weapons are for. A criminal display of a weapon is grounds for self defense, up to and including deadly force.  This has been held up in court and case law time and time again.  Any half-brained attorney can easily find numerous case laws on this act. If an attorney doesn't see it this way, he should be disbarred after he's fired from the case.  Will you have to explain your actions?  Absolutely!  At least I will be alive to be able to explain and not a dead helpless victim.   
Now, each case is different.  You state, "While he was trying to keep him there until the police show up they start fighting. The thief looses."  That is an important factor in the case.  If the property owner starts wacking on him after he is subdued, yes, he is using excessive force...more force than was required to subdue the situation.  That becomes a violent assault based on temper.  I don't know the factors in the case, but, for him to have to pay a settlement, there is more to the story. It is no different from police wailing on someone after the threat is contained. You cannot do that.

[thirsty]

My point with that is was the thief would not have gotten the crap knocked out of him if he did not go on that property, break into the truck, and try to steal the man's rifle. If thieves thought that they would probably get beat on or shot than they might not steal. Would it be different if the thief hit him and he said that he felt that he was in iminent danger of severe injury or death and shot him rather than hit him twice as hard twice as many times. Picture the rifle as one of your children getting taken, you would have a hard time holding back and using just enough force to hold the guy no matter how many times he swung at you. Anyway I was agreeing with the fact that if more people where armed then criminals would be fewer. Criminals should be taking the extreme risk of getting hurt badly or killed if they decide to commit a crime against another human being.

[Lt.Del]

i hear ya.  back in the day there was this thing called vigilante justice...sometimes i think we need to go back to that to teach these scumbags a lesson.  They'd send the posse out with the rope and as soon as they found him--let's just say that that would be the last crime they'd ever do. 
The law sometimes protects the wrong person when common sense takes a back burner and the letter of the law is followed. i grew up in the country and it'd sure be nice to take matters in your own hands...it was done that way quite often, then all these lawyers came in to the scene. 

[Blazin]

I say its alot easier to hold an unconscious person until the police show up than a conscious one that keeps trying to run away!!!!!

[bd]

Here are a few random thoughts triggered by this thread:

Vigilanteism isn't really the answer either.  But, lets just say that if someone commits a crime, they should lose all rights guaranteed by our Constitution and laws, as regards the consequences of their offense.  In other words, our laws should be strictly interpreted to protect and support those who endeavor to live ethically and decently, who obey the law, and who support free society.  At the point one crosses the line into criminality, he/she should lose his/her rights and the protections enjoyed by those who choose to be ethical and are socially motivated.  Civilization is created, it doesn't just randomly occur by happenstance.  The sincerity of not harming another who has not earned it, but neither withholding wrath when due is a display of character and integrity that should not be despoiled or soiled by legal manipulation and melodrama that is the current trend in our courts.  When something occurs that is not okay, whether locally or on a grand scale, the social response should be to squelch it in a way that restores order and firmly communicates the unacceptableness of the transgression.  Sometimes that calls for placing heads on pikes, but not as a matter of routine for that might usher oppression. 

Courage, moral fortitude and freedom founded this Country.  The perpetuation of such was intended by the authors of our Constitution and many of our laws (not all), and, I believe, pervades the hearts of moral and just men.  It takes courage to be ethical and manifest integrity in the shadow of mass fixed opinion.  I've heard it said that you can learn a lot about a society by studying its laws.  Hence, the wholesale passing of yet more laws is not any remedy and constrains a society to bursting.  Which, if you back away sufficiently and look, is the direction we are headed after only a couple of hundred years.  Now, I wildly digress into drum beating and perpetual debate....

As others have aptly stated, poor judgement culminated in the shooting incident that precipitated this thread.  It was an unfortunate circumstance.  Good judgement paired with even temper and integrity produce a willingness to fight back when necessary and is perhaps our greatest protection.

[Grim 82]

He broke Rule #1 of gunfighting

[Lt.Del]

He broke Rule #1 of gunfighting

not bringing a gun 

[Grim 82]

That's right

Without getting into politics and vigilante justice, etc. and other viewpoints, the very first thing that popped into my mind when I read the article that I wanted to share was a piece of advice that I heard once:

Don't go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid stuff.

Following that advice will prevent almost any problem. When stupid stuff comes to you, and the choice to avoid it is not offered, at least be prepared. I carry, but I agree with Vile that there are alot of people that shouldn't, just like there are alot of people that should not drive.

[bd]

Hear, hear.

[beastie_3]

  I can't stand how many times people think it is the police's job to protect them.  No, it is YOUR job to protect YOURSELF! 
   

Not in California, thanks to Gov Brown. We cant open carry anymore and unless youre a friend of the Sheriff, you arent getting a CCW. Outside my home, my gun has to be locked up during transport.

[gto109]

Beastie that's how Pennsylvania is to.  when i get the pistol I'mlooking at I'mjust going to fill out the permit to carry it.