CNN....fair and balanced (Gun Control = DC handgun Ban)

[Yeager]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns.intl/#cnnSTCVideo

This pretty much lays out the argument.  Both women are talking about their own views and both have valid points.  Thats where law and a constitutional amendmant comes into the picture.

My own belief is that people have the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

<edit> I was mildly suprised that CNN aired the pro gun argument.

[DadRabit]

agreed   

[Hornet33]

I agree as well.

For those that don't like guns, don't buy one.

Me, well I think I'll keep mine around. If the day ever comes that guns are outlawed completely, then I'll be an outlaw.

[ink]

gun control  is using both hands.

[DrDea]

  No..Gun control is hitting a crack head that just stole your tv in the head at 100 yards.

[Charon]

CNN must see the Heller writing on the wall and wants to get out in front of the curve. The pro gun control person selected was an airhead who sounded high and spoke in unsubstantiated, general "feelings." The pro second amendment person was articulate and provided multiple well reasoned points. Usually it is the other way around

Charon

[SteveBailey]

  No..Gun control is hitting a crack head that just stole your tv in the head at 100 yards.

Actually that's not gun control, that's murder.  I hope you are joking because if you're not, you are the type of nutjob that gives anti-gun nutjobs fodder for their arguments.

[Maverick]

Actually that's not gun control, that's murder.  I hope you are joking because if you're not, you are the type of nutjob that gives anti-gun nutjobs fodder for their arguments.

Uh oh, Steve and I agree on something. Is the asteroid on the way to Earth to destroy life?

[lasersailor184]

Are you serious?


It's not murder to keep your property from being stolen.

[eagl]

Are you serious?


It's not murder to keep your property from being stolen.

Actually, it may be murder, especially if you planned it in advance.  Laws regarding the use of lethal force by civilians typically reserve that right to instances where a person's life is in danger.  Merely defending objects does not generally permit the use of lethal force.  To distinguish the difference between property that are belongings, and property that is your house and land, many states have a make my day law that allows a person to use lethal force against an intruder in their house (or occasionally even merely standing on their land) if there is even a hint of possibility that the land/home owner's life or the life of someone legitimately on that land or in the house is in jeopardy.  But those laws are specific in intent, and do not justify shooting someone who is simply carting off your belongings.

Some law enforcement officers are permitted to shoot fleeing felons (they used to be obligated to shoot fleeing felons, but that requirement has not been enforced for some time to my knowlege) even if the fleeing felon is doing nothing but, well, fleeing.  But even cops fully authorized to shoot people now hesitate to shoot anyone who is not a direct and immediate threat to someone.  It's just not worth the hassle.

[Maverick]

Eagle,

Unless you can show an imminent danger to the Officer or another person an Officer cannot just shoot a fleeing felon. Lately, even in cases of a definite danger such as a person trying to run down an Officer you can get in deep trouble by shooting at the driver.

[eagl]

Eagle,

Unless you can show an imminent danger to the Officer or another person an Officer cannot just shoot a fleeing felon. Lately, even in cases of a definite danger such as a person trying to run down an Officer you can get in deep trouble by shooting at the driver.

I think that is "now".  "Then", some officers (not sure which agencies) were required to shoot any felon who tried to get away.  Of course, that was back before you could become a felon for jaywalking three times (re: calif 3-strikes law).

[lasersailor184]

Actually, it may be murder, especially if you planned it in advance.  Laws regarding the use of lethal force by civilians typically reserve that right to instances where a person's life is in danger.  Merely defending objects does not generally permit the use of lethal force.  To distinguish the difference between property that are belongings, and property that is your house and land, many states have a make my day law that allows a person to use lethal force against an intruder in their house (or occasionally even merely standing on their land) if there is even a hint of possibility that the land/home owner's life or the life of someone legitimately on that land or in the house is in jeopardy.  But those laws are specific in intent, and do not justify shooting someone who is simply carting off your belongings.

Some law enforcement officers are permitted to shoot fleeing felons (they used to be obligated to shoot fleeing felons, but that requirement has not been enforced for some time to my knowlege) even if the fleeing felon is doing nothing but, well, fleeing.  But even cops fully authorized to shoot people now hesitate to shoot anyone who is not a direct and immediate threat to someone.  It's just not worth the hassle.

And there are times when I think america is lost.


We're about due for a revolution. 

[eagl]

And there are times when I think america is lost.


We're about due for a revolution. 

Well, even back in the wild-west days, there were only a few laws on the books authorizing people to kill thieves.  Horse and cattle theft were notable in that laws were passed explicitly making these crimes punishable by death.  But stealing a spare wagon wheel or a hammer from the toolshed...  I don't know if that would be a legit shooting even 200 years ago. 

[Brownshirt]

Yeah and one could also own slaves and marry a 12y old girl. Oh those were the days!