When CCW saves peoples lives thread.

[mrsleeve]

^
While all that is true why do I have to rely on the state to protect me outside of my own property, when there is NO constitutional duty for those persons to protect me if they feel their life will be put into peril??? Why should my rights to defend myself or family be suspended at my front door or Property line if I am accosted some place else I have every right to be as well???? My rights to defend my own life should be suspend in favor of the state taking over that responsibly as soon as I leave my house is this really what you advocate for????

I took a quote from your statement above here. This really bothers me. Why do people feel the right to limit Anything when it comes to others? Do you feel it is your civic duty to pull in front of me on the freeway going 60 when I am doing 80, to limit me? You are being the vigilanty here in a sort of way. You stated you do not want vigilanties and that is what is happening when you try to limit others.

I don't want to sound like I have an attitude towards you, but try to think deeper into this. There is way too much mentality of control in this country. If people were to mind their own business and take care of themselves, a lot of these issues and violence would be reduced. Too many people in others faces all the time.

While I agree with you, When in public the limitations on Your rights start when you begin to encroach on the rights of others. merely carrying a weapon in Concealed manner is not encroaching on anyone else's rights so thats all good. Nor is open carry other than many people fear the fire arm as opposed to the person carrying it, many people have this notion that a firearm will jump from a holster and kill them all by it self, or that the only reason that a person would want a firearm is for nefarious intent. This is the mentality that people get the notion that their rights are being infringed upon, because they feel uncomfortable in a public space by a person with a firearm on their hip in the open. Its a false preconception and their own personal problem, but when they call 911 and say there is a "man with a gun" then it becomes OUR problem and in many cases results in a big headache for that person and the caller walks off with out any consequences for those actions in the lions share of incidents.

I prefer my OWB for my 220, I use it a lot while hiking and so on, for get to pull the pistol when I walk into get pizza or something, where I live most people understand that OC is legal and its not an issue. The Tourists and some of the transplants dont know this or like to ask why I feel the need to have a firearm in the grocery store in my little ski/resort town. Generally when I know I am going to town I CCW to avoid alarming people and avoid stupid people altercations.

[smooth]

What the fuck is your guys problem? This is exactly why you raise peoples hackles. Being totally unreasonable for no reason. You take offense where none is given. You think people want to be around hostile people like yourselves toting guns?

Someone asked me why I thought there's a distinction between home defense and ccw. This isn't a thread about gun control. I didn't argue for taking anyone's rights away. I simply said there's a difference between the two spaces--what you do in your own home is your own business. What you do in the streets is everyone's business. This should be basic common sense and just being a generally well mannered citizen. The fact you want to jump someone's shit for expressing that very basic understanding of what it means to be a respectful citizen is exactly why I don't trust you with other peoples lives.

I don't have a problem with guns not do I think they're evil. I have a problem with people like you who can't seem to respect other peoples rights because you think your rights are the only ones that matter. You probably think the same thing about me when I say stay far away from me but there's a huge distinction you seem incapable of understanding: I'm not the one arguing for the right to choose whether someone lives or dies.

I heard somewhere that an armed society is a polite society...

If we take the guns away from those that follow the law, all that will be left is the people that are already breaking the law with all the guns... Then what? We can't all have a personal cop around to defend us and our loved ones.

Where'd you get this lil gem? The NRA? Millions of people are capable of being polite without being armed. If you can't be polite without threat of a gun then you have problem.

[DER E30]

I took a quote from your statement above here. This really bothers me. Why do people feel the right to limit Anything when it comes to others? Do you feel it is your civic duty to pull in front of me on the freeway going 60 when I am doing 80, to limit me? You are being the vigilanty here in a sort of way. You stated you do not want vigilanties and that is what is happening when you try to limit others.

I don't want to sound like I have an attitude towards you, but try to think deeper into this. There is way too much mentality of control in this country. If people were to mind their own business and take care of themselves, a lot of these issues and violence would be reduced. Too many people in others faces all the time.

Agreed. I really don't care what you do, stay out of my business and I'll return the favor.
Try to hurt my loved ones and I'll return that favor, I don't want to sound like a bad guy and all that, I'm a peaceful person, BUT I'll defend mine if need be... Mr. Smooth, Would you not do the same for those you loved? With whatever means you deemed necessary?? I don't know about you, but I go into the world and like my ability to do that everywhere, not JUST at home...

I heard somewhere that an armed society is a polite society...

If we take the guns away from those that follow the law, all that will be left is the people that are already breaking the law with all the guns... Then what? We can't all have a personal cop around to defend us and our loved ones.

[Sps]

When I'm in public spaces I have a right to limit your behavior because it's both of our space--not yours and not mine. We, as a society, limit what people do in public

I took a quote from your statement above here. This really bothers me. Why do people feel the right to limit Anything when it comes to others? Do you feel it is your civic duty to pull in front of me on the freeway going 60 when I am doing 80, to limit me? You are being the vigilanty here in a sort of way. You stated you do not want vigilanties and that is what is happening when you try to limit others.

I don't want to sound like I have an attitude towards you, but try to think deeper into this. There is way too much mentality of control in this country. If people were to mind their own business and take care of themselves, a lot of these issues and violence would be reduced. Too many people in others faces all the time.

[DER E30]

your home is your property. I'm not interested in telling you what to do in your home. () I don't think it's safe for you to keep a gun in the home,Let me worry about that in my home... and stay out of my home if you've got a problem with my guns. statistics are clear that gun owners present more of a danger to themselves than invading strangers present to them, and I wouldn't have one in my house if I had children.Sounds like a problem of lack of training and a safe... That's my personal choice but I'm still not going to get in the way of your choices as to how you choose to defend yourself and family in the confines of your own property.

The only caveat is I think there needs to be some level of discussion about how to make sure you remain a responsible gun owner--how to keep it out of the hands of children and criminals. I don't even care, from a legal standpoint, if you choose to shoot yourself in the face.

I have a safe and ALL my guns are safely inside all the time but one, and that one I literally have control of ALL the time, strapped to me. So they are ALL out of the hands of kids and criminals, either locked up tight or safely with me.

Some people, like pacifists, think that guns are bad or evil or whatever, and that you shouldn't have a weapon or harm someone over property on principle. So they might make an argument against you possessing a weapon even in your own home.

I don't have anything to do with any of that. My concern is when I'm out in public. I have a right to lobby my politicians and support laws that limit your ability to carry and brandish weapons in public. I don't know about your state, but mine would lock me up if I "brandished," drew, or pointed my gun at somebody without fearing for my life.I don't want that shit around my kids,I'm not showing off my weapon to anybody, including your kids... I don't want people who think they're dimestore cowboys trying to save my life, I don't want vigilantes trying to take matters into their own hands. I'm not out to save anybodies life but mine and my loved ones. There are many, many good people on this earth, and a few bad ones. I don't want to bump into one of the few and have them ruin my life or the lives of my loved ones... I hope to carry the rest of my days and never have a good enough reason to draw my weapon, but I will train for if that day ever comes, that I will be prepared. Isn't being prepared better than woefully unprepared for contingencies? When I'm in public spaces I have a right to limit your behavior because it's both of our space--not yours and not mine.I respect your right but I also have a right to carry, lobby to be able to carry more places, and to defend me and mine from harm, and the reason I conceal is to not worry those that would worry about my "evil" gun. Like you evidentally... We, as a society, limit what people do in public that we don't limit when they are on private property for a whole range of behaviors.

The point is that home invasion stories are for another thread. Carrying a concealed weapon in public is an issue totally separate from possessing a firearm in one's home. So stories about saving lives while defending one's home is not relevant to this thread--demonstrating that carrying hidden weapons in public actually makes people more safe.
SO you're saying that that last story would be different if we transplanted the two people to a Mcdonald's or somewhere public? You would let that criminal shoot down a law abiding citizen and steal his wallet or whatever?
The only reason he posted that story is because the thread has run its course. After the initial spate of stories the well has run dry. There should be hundreds of thousands of stories of saved lives if the numbers are to be believed, but so far there hasn't been any such evidence despite how long this thread has lived.

Made a few comments...

[frankenbeemer]

That's completely understandable. I share your concern about irresponsible toters and vigilantes, but I am responsible and proficient. I don't want my right of self defense limited.

[smooth]

your home is your property. I'm not interested in telling you what to do in your home. I don't think it's safe for you to keep a gun in the home, statistics are clear that gun owners present more of a danger to themselves than invading strangers present to them, and I wouldn't have one in my house if I had children. That's my personal choice but I'm still not going to get in the way of your choices as to how you choose to defend yourself and family in the confines of your own property.

The only caveat is I think there needs to be some level of discussion about how to make sure you remain a responsible gun owner--how to keep it out of the hands of children and criminals. I don't even care, from a legal standpoint, if you choose to shoot yourself in the face.

Some people, like pacifists, think that guns are bad or evil or whatever, and that you shouldn't have a weapon or harm someone over property on principle. So they might make an argument against you possessing a weapon even in your own home.


I don't have anything to do with any of that. My concern is when I'm out in public. I have a right to lobby my politicians and support laws that limit your ability to carry and brandish weapons in public. I don't want that shit around my kids, I don't want people who think they're dimestore cowboys trying to save my life, I don't want vigilantes trying to take matters into their own hands. When I'm in public spaces I have a right to limit your behavior because it's both of our space--not yours and not mine. We, as a society, limit what people do in public that we don't limit when they are on private property for a whole range of behaviors.

The point is that home invasion stories are for another thread. Carrying a concealed weapon in public is an issue totally separate from possessing a firearm in one's home. So stories about saving lives while defending one's home is not relevant to this thread--demonstrating that carrying hidden weapons in public actually makes people more safe.

The only reason he posted that story is because the thread has run its course. After the initial spate of stories the well has run dry. There should be hundreds of thousands of stories of saved lives if the numbers are to be believed, but so far there hasn't been any such evidence despite how long this thread has lived.

[frankenbeemer]

but again, this isn't relevant to CCW. not one bit. the only people who disagree with home defense are pacifists and theirs is ethical objection not legal objection.

Interested in your distinctions between self defense "in the home" as opposed to "in public".

[smooth]

It was something I read a long while back that has stuck in my brain I will retract that.

That said

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2013/07/19/what-is-the-duty-to-retreat-rule-in-california/

This muddies the waters about home defense, it forces the occupant to ascertain the the intentions of the intruder. If you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back, there is no threat to your life or limb so there for your actions are not justified even in your own home. Unlike most castle doctrines that automatically assume an unwanted intruder in your home has malicious intent and allows you to act accordingly with out having to ascertain the intruders intentions 1st....

even though laws are written with precision you can't really conclude that people are prosecuted for protecting their homes. For that, you need to look at actual cases like this one last week:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/05/two-teenage-boys-shot-dead-in-california-during-burglary-attempt/?intcmp=latestnews

we also have laws that say criminals must have mens era to be culpable but as everyone knows, "ignorance is no defense" of the law.

warrantless searches and seizures are bounded by constraints like officers must have "probable cause" and that "reasonable suspicion" is not sufficient...yet in practice there is no such barrier unless an officer stupidly testifies that he or she did *not* have probable cause.

so unless a homeowner argued that he or she was not in danger of his or her life yet shot to kill anyway there would be no issue. unless you want legislation that protects defendants like Pistorious and allows them to shoot at their ex girlfriends who locked themselves in the bathroom.

it's not like rocket science. the jury is instructed about the relevant protections and the judge decides whether a reasonable person would be in fear. not the defendant, not the jury, not the judge...any "reasonable" person under the law. and given that our state's self defense and castle doctrines have been on the books for over a hundred years it's not like some newfangled notion. it's well established case law that goes back hundreds of years in common law doctrine.

don't eat up all the horseshit from political blogs without fact checking.

but again, this isn't relevant to CCW. not one bit. the only people who disagree with home defense are pacifists and theirs is ethical objection not legal objection.

[mrsleeve]

It was something I read a long while back that has stuck in my brain I will retract that.

That said

California Castle law allows a home’s occupant to use deadly force, without retreating, if an intruder creates a “reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or great bodily injury.” But a simple burglary that doesn’t create fear of great bodily harm isn’t enough to justify deadly force. The court may have to decide what is “reasonable fear”.

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2013/07/19/what-is-the-duty-to-retreat-rule-in-california/

This muddies the waters about home defense, it forces the occupant to ascertain the the intentions of the intruder. If you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back, there is no threat to your life or limb so there for your actions are not justified even in your own home. Unlike most castle doctrines that automatically assume an unwanted intruder in your home has malicious intent and allows you to act accordingly with out having to ascertain the intruders intentions 1st....

[smooth]

Many states recognize this fact, yours does not, with its 1st duty to retreat clause in its self defense statutes including with in your own home....

why do you parrot shit you hear somewhere without fact-checking?
it took me all of 3 seconds to google this for you...

California Penal Code Section 198.5

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 198.5

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

in public, not only is one justified in "standing ground" but also pursuit if necessary:

“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=289

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=295

[mrsleeve]

yes its pure semantics. our rights to defend our selves dont stop at our property line or front door nor should it. Many states recognize this fact, yours does not, with its 1st duty to retreat clause in its self defense statutes including with in your own home....

Its not the job or duty of the police or the govt proxy to defend mine or my families lives form criminals

[smooth]

it's not semantics. there is a major difference between carrying firearms in public and home defense.

[mrsleeve]

because its a lawful defense with a firearm and it fits best in here Vs all the other firearms debate threads, and why start another thread over semantics???

[smooth]

Well not really CCW...a home owner [...] defend[s] his life and home after a man breaks in and shoots at him 1st.....

then why post the story? what relevance do you think this has about the debate on whether people should carry concealed weapons in public spaces?