You can't start a fistfight then change it to a one-sided gunfight and claim "self defense".

Couldn't do that under the "old" law, can't do that under "SYG".

If you attack me with your fists, best believe I will shoot you. People die from beatings, I'm not excited about being one of them.

if someone attacked him with their fists, he would use a gun to defend himself.

So someone's exposed fist is now worthy of a "kill shot?" Good gawd.

The whole business seems pretty stupid to me.

Sometimes I just think we oughtta let the Yahoos have at one another and clear some space for the rest of us.

... before I can defend myself?

You can wave your fists around all you like, but your right to wave them ends at the tip of my nose.

Sure, wave 'em around, shake 'em in my face, you can even call me names and get red in the face, I'll just laugh at you. Bust me one upside the head, though, and the dynamics have changed, and not to your advantage.

male suitor, should have justified a "kill shot" to the woman? Translate that to real life. Good gawd... Maybe it will be your teenager, somewhat out of control with a stranger... yup, that little flicker of anger and a raised fist, translates to a "deservedly" dead teen?

Please do some self reflection and see if you can't find some way to get past your fear, find some common sense, and more importantly to place some value on human life.

Like I said, how much damage do I have to absorb before I can decide this isn't a "little slap"?

You don't know me. you know NOTHING about me. I'm just some user name on an internet forum, yet you sit there and tell me "to get past your fear, find some common sense, and more importantly to place some value on human life." I place PLENTY of value on human life, first and foremost, my *OWN*.

"Maybe it will be your teenager..." Nope. It won't be. I don't have teenage children. Isn't that what they call a "straw man"?

By the way, Life isn't a fucking movie.

No, life isn't a (as you say) "fucking" movie. Sadly, there was more common sense employed regarding the use of guns in those movies--including the old westerns--than you are advocating today. Leaving most of the rest of the world WISHING for the comparative sanity of movies.

You may suffer from seriously faulty judgement. Therefore, it would be unwise to leave up to you the decision of when a slap should be returned with a gunshot to the chest.

One can not use SYG to justify the use lethal force to respond to a threat that resulted from a situation that you caused.

At most one participant in an altercation can be eligible for the protections of SYG.

I believe that he mentioned fisticuffs to highlight the fact that punches from an adult can do serious harm and to indicate his support for the applicability of SYG to situations in which only the defender is armed with a lethal weapon.

> ne can not use SYG to justify the use lethal force to respond to a threat that resulted from a situation that you caused.

So who tells the other side of the story? Dead men tell no tales, and Ouija Boards are not considered admissible evidence.

The SYG law is just a Get Out Of Jail Free card for murder.

Remind me again of how many people willingly tell the truth when facing 50 years of jail or execution....

So now if you are on the loosing end of a physical fight, you can just pull out your gun and shoot someone? Wtf?

I hope those responsible for enacting SYG will be saying goodbye to their political careers as a result.

Not sure who I want to see die.

are increased exponentially when a gun is brought into the fray.

Look, I'm not opposed to someone defending themselves, even with a gun if absolutely necessary. But these SYG laws take self defense to a whole new, and imo ridiculous level. If someone is truly being attacked, and is fearing for their lives, they could, under pre-SYG laws probably make a case for self defense (on a case-by-case basis).

But SYG is overly broad, thus bringing about a self-defense defense to absurd levels.

Edited for grammar.

I've been in plenty of fights--- where fists were used... Army days... and guess what...I'm still here.

Now if my opponent pulled a gun mid-fight--- I probably wouldn't be here.

other day.

People "hear" about people dying of things as tiny as papercuts. It's a constant stream of murderous fists, paper, & mosquitos.

But I *so rarely* hear about dying from guns.

Don't fall for the 24 news cycle hype.

And no other factors accounted for that, right?



It seems NRA Talking Points are only valid if you consider statistics a "Voodoo Science"

Oh boy, that took 10 seconds. Keep trying with your Talking Points, they're entertaining!

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

It also seems that to drop it even lower we need to eliminate the working class according to this article

"An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55)."

> t also seems that to drop it even lower we need to eliminate the working class according to this article

Nope, you're wrong. It means that if there are more people in professional class jobs that the gun shot rate goes down.

This is fun! Keep trying!

Please supply the answer to the original question. "How does this show the reasons that gun violence is at a 50 year low and dropping?"

> So you agree that working class people are not responsible firearm owners?

No.

> "Please supply the answer to the original question. "How does this show the reasons that gun violence is at a 50 year low and dropping?"

I gave you one link. You want more? Just because you refuse to believe what the article proves isn't my problem.

Your link did not answer the question of "other factors". I have doubts you read it before posting it.

> our link did not answer the question of "other factors". I have doubts you read it before posting it.

Why do you think it didn't?

You know, the earth has been getting warmer. I bet that's the reason we're safer. In fact, I contend that IS the reason. Now, disprove it.

> Either because you couldn't answer or didn't read i

NO, i read it. It looks more & more like you didn't read it.

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to my post #75.

Global warming is causing the decrease in gun deaths.

Now disprove it.

Your claim has less support for it than my claim.

So, let's see your evidence that global warming didn't cause fewer gun fatalities.

I believe that the best approach is to legalize all weapons (even nukes) and dump as much carbon dioxide and methane as possible into the atmosphere.

We will bring forth a paradise.

So you're saying that SYG turns "murder" into "justifiable homicide"?

Thanks for proving my point that SYG is just a Get Out Of Jail Free card for murder.

so you cannot say that SYG leads to more deaths.


Do you think that using deadly force to for self defense is OK in certain situations?

> We know that overall gun deaths are down and steadily declining

Which I contend is due to global warming. Up to you to prove the opposite. Kind of like how gun-lovers make the claim that higher gun ownership = safety. I will be looking for your evidence that global warming is NOT the cause of the lower death rate.

> so you cannot say that SYG leads to more deaths.

It led to at least one - Trayvon. So I win that point.

> Do you think that using deadly force to for self defense is OK in certain situations?

Red Herring. Self defense has always been legal defense for shooting someone. But SYG takes investigation off the table if the survivor says "I was threatened! He looked cross eyed at me! I HAD to shoot!

the legal standard for "reasonable threat" has not changed. Criminals can claim SYG - doesn't mean they can prove it. Doesn't mean the police or a jury can't disagree with them.


In fact, your example of "He looked cross eyed at me!" would lead to an automatic arrest - that is not a "reasonable threat" by any standard.

> the legal standard for "reasonable threat" has not changed. Criminals can claim SYG - doesn't mean they can prove it.

Tell me how they determine fault if the situation is "He said - she said" and one of the parties is dead? Remember, no Ouija Boards in court!

> n fact, your example of "He looked cross eyed at me!" would lead to an automatic arrest

Oh, you thought that was serious? OK, how about "He was going to kill me! He was beating on me! I was going to die! So I HAD to shoot him!" THis, of course, was the story that Zimmerman gave to the cops.

You gotta try harder in your replies!

Without SYG, they will have cases where they will have to determine blame when there are no witnesses. Just how does doing away with SYG change things in such a case?

For most cases there may be physical evidence that disagrees with the shooters story. More likely there will be witnesses.

For all you know, Zimmerman is going to be convicted based on a proper investigation and examination of the evidence.

> Without SYG, they will have cases where they will have to determine blame when there are no witnesses. Just how does doing away with SYG change things in such a case

You need to read the SYG laws. The one in Florida prohibits some of the investigation, as well as prohibiting arresting the murderer if he claims SYG.

> For most cases there may be physical evidence that disagrees with the shooters story. More likely there will be witnesses.

You'll have to prove "most", as well as your 2nd assertion (in one sentence no less!) of "More likely".

Now I've answered about 10 of your questions. Time for you to answer AT LEAST one of mine. Please prove why global warming isn't the reason gun deaths are down.

"The one in Florida prohibits some of the investigation, as well as prohibiting arresting the murderer if he claims SYG. "

Here is the Florida statute - show me where it says what you say it does.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html


Don't you think section 776.041 poses a huge problem for Zimmerman?

SYG accounts for a miniscule fraction of the difference.

You have never been safer.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

And nothing else accounted for the drop in deaths? It is up to you to prove correlation. Otherwise, my claim that global warming caused the lower death rate stands.

So, you have two things to prove:

1) the drop in gun deaths is due to greater gun ownership
2) global warming didn't cause the drop in deaths

The only conclusion allowed by the facts is that more guns do not equal more deaths and that present gun laws do not promote more deaths.

Those are the only things I believe in and what I can prove.

> The only conclusion allowed by the facts is that more guns do not equal more deaths and that present gun laws do not promote more deaths.

Not even close. There are lots of other factors. One of the most major ones is the socioeconomic status of a region & of the inhabitants.

And of course, the REAL BIGGIE, global warming. That is what caused the lower death rate.

I am not saying guns and laws are the reason for lower gun violence.

You claimed:

> The only conclusion allowed by the facts is that more guns do not equal more deaths and that present gun laws do not promote more deaths.

And I pointed out that other factors could keep gun deaths low even if the increase of guns was causing an increase in gun deaths due to the proliferation.

the fact that the decrease in violent crime happened at the same time our prison population expanded can't be denied.

Which makes perfect sense - the real threat from guns comes from violent criminals, especially drug gangs. They can't shoot people when they are in prison.

Aging population is another reason - violent crime is predominantly a young man's game.

Another factor is increased law enforcement attention on gangs. Gun violence has never been uniformly distributed in America - murder stats are definitely skewed by the violence of drug gangs in American cities.

Good to see you acknowledge that greater gun ownership has nothing to do with lessened gun deaths.

Before or after losing consciousness?

Nice try at changing the point, but the point is (and will remain no matter how hard you try to change it): Did SYG laws enable this rise in shootings?

Secondly, you've always been able to use "self-defense" as a legal defense. So, your post is especially weak!

Its gun-control supporters like you that are. SYG is a perfectly reasonable law, and i doubt it will work for Zimmerman's defense considering that he was the one who initiated the confrontation, and tried to question Trayvon as if he were a cop, which he of course had no right to do.

> ts gun-control supporters like you that are. SYG is a perfectly reasonable law

OK, so you've given up discussion using logic, and are going for the default position of "It's great because I SAID SO!"



> Zimmerman's defense considering that he was the one who initiated the confrontation, and tried to question

Dead men tell no tales. Zimmerman & his lawyer are laying low most likely so they can get their stories using SYG as a defense synchronized, air-tight, and well-memorized.

can we at assault rifles too?


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

You'd think after the OJ thing they would be on the front-lines for banning those oh so dangerous WMDs from our homes.

In case you have not read the Terms Of Service Here is a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Have a great day!

Bill

Already read 'em.

Let me know the mortality figures for 100 knifings vs. 100 shootings. Be sure to compare the area of the body & number of wounds properly. Don't use NRA rules, which are:

"1 gun wound to a foot is comparable to multiple-knife woundings near the heart".

You gotta lot of work to do! Use google, it should only take you a few days.

The gun-controllers say we need gun control because "too many people die", well if just one person dies because of a knife, isn't that "too many people"? What your saying is because the number of homicides due to guns is higher than those due to knives, we only need to ban guns? Essentially, if your killed by a knife, "tough!". Some coherence you guys have there.

> he gun-controllers say we need gun control because "too many people die", well if just one person dies because of a knife, isn't that "too many people"?

Reducto Ad Absurdum fallacy (thanks X-Digger for the list of rhetorical fallacies that gun-lovers use!).

Try again, spinner!

The argument i always get is, "too many deaths". By all means, i'm willing to listen........

Yawn. Just a variant on the Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is trying to ban all deaths, just lessen them in a way that every other civilized country in the world has done.

Ok, then. Lets ban knives? Yea or Nay? How about cars? Lots of deaths there.

Ah, the Red Herring rhetorical falsehood!

Fail. Try again.

I just think its completely off base.

And assault rifles are used the exact same amount of times that people use hands, fist, and feet in fights, right?

Oh boy your Talking Point is BEYOND simple to rip to shreds. Try again!

Wow, you gun-lovers sure love twisting & spinning!

You can die from sneezing. But the numbers of dead from lead is higher, and death comes easier from a gun than a sneeze.

HOLY CRAP!@!! Time to ban sneezing.

Spin is all ya got!

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

you have never been safer and next year you will be even more safer.

Those are the hard facts that gun grabbers like yourself can't refute so all you are left with is emotion, personal attacks and smilies.

Keeping your head in the sand about the hundreds of other factors isn't a smart thing to do, but whatever....


> ft with is emotion, personal attacks and smilies.

I thought gun-owners were tough!

there is a reason gun control is a dead issue in America - most people understand those facts you want so desperately to ignore.

> You have never been safer - that's the bottom line.

No thanks to guns.

gun ownership has skyrocketed yet gun deaths are at historic lows. Proves that Americans are capable of using guns in safe and responsible manner.

You can make unsupported, evidence-free statements all day. Just because you see them on a computer screen doesn't make them correct.

explain it to us.

There are other posts by me in this thread where I do just that. Look for them. I can't repeat them for all the gun lovers who want to pile on me.

But even without Stand Your Ground I have no affirmative obligation to get beat up.

If I had a gun and some guy jumped me and started hitting me I have every right to resist him "by any means necessary".

Should the losing guy grab a gun and shoot the other guy?

The use of deadly force would be highly suspect.

I am referring to the "innocent guy gets rolled" scenario especially where there is violence.

...with the number of people who die due to guns. Sorry, you're not permitted to make up your own reality to suit your moods.

Just sick.......

Seems it's the world gun prohibitionist dreamed about to pursue their utopia.

So more shootings & death is the "world gun prohibitionist dreamed about to pursue their utopia."

No comment.

appalling.

It is the inevitable consequence of giving license to virtually anybody to carry and use.

Yup

Pretzels try less.

Logic comprehension fail yes.

After all, there is no such thing as "Driver Education" or probationary periods of limited driving! They just give a 15.99 year old guy a giant old SUV and say, "Fire away! 90 is too slow!"

Explain please, how do more guns translates to less guns?

What logic was used to come up with it?

it seems that this jackass law is just allowing one sided gun fights.

bring back dueling and let's see how things work out then.

This is only partly satirical.

We're getting the same results.

shooting an unarmed man (asshole that he may have been) would have gotten one hanged.

Unless of course there was no law or lynching party in the portion of the west such murder was committed.


There were completely lawless parts of the west of course where people did shoot the unarmed for fun and profit, perhaps that is the state some yearn for.

But yup, another incident.

To be blunt though, and hypothethical...if the shootee grabbed a knife, then it follows escalation of force.

If just fist to cuffs....yup the mythical wild west is back.

This type of law seems to just provide blanket protection for murder, no trial, no arrest, based on the account that one person felt their attacker/opponent was a threat to their life, parrot those words and you're 'safe'.

Well duh, no one can read the mind of another and when they are attacking/fighting you you JUST might get the idea they could seriously injure or even kill you. How can anyone know when another person thinks you've been beaten down 'enough' all assuming you don't think they just want to kill you? You don't even need to be losing the fight you could just take a 'bad hit' and feel like that.

"he's coming right for us!"

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us