It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: burdman30ott6
so a foetus is more alive than a person threatening you??
I'm confused - why is a foetus being alive more important than an adult?? Is a person not entitled to life because they are a criminal - should we just execute all burglars without trial??
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TerminalVelocity
who said that??
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Aliensun
Those people without a pair will object, of course.
As will those with brass ones soooooooooooo big that they can stand strong and courageous even in the face of danger, with such honor for the sanctity of life -- and such respect for everyone's inalienable right to life -- that lethal force is always their last resort... never the first.
We asked what happened to homicide rates in states that passed these laws between 2000 and 2010, compared to other states over the same time period. We found that homicide rates in states with a version of the Stand Your Ground law increased by an average of 8 percent over states without it — which translates to roughly 600 additional homicides per year. These homicides are classified by police as criminal homicides, not as justifiable homicides.
originally posted by: Aliensun
In case you missed it, the discussion was about not defending your rights in respect to your personal body. think about it.
And since most people have little or no training in how to defuse a violent situation, cope with the anxiety and panic of an armed confrontation (even if they are the only one armed) it is not particularly surprising (to me at least) that they make really bad decisions in such situations.
originally posted by: lucifershiningone
Coward pulls gun after he starts fight and loses.
www.liveleak.com...
Gun owners always interest me. I have always wondered why they are so paranoid and live their lives by what if scenarios.
I don't agree with stand your ground..if you start something and then pull your gun, kill them..you should be charged with murder. If you are in danger than I could understand but if you physically attack someone and than pull your gun..you are a coward and should be charged.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Your position FAILED.
certainly the idea of the laws is that people get to defend themselves and "get off" - however are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed? And that retreating from eth situation would usually result in no-one being shot??
You could offer more to this than just kneejerk "you aint' gonna take my guns" kind of thinking and response.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
originally posted by: EternalSolace
It shouldn't matter whether you have a criminal past, regardless of the crime, or not. Everyone should have the right to defend their home against any and all threats. No one should have to retreat in their home, hide, or wait to see what the intruder might do.
Your source says:
The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.”
It would seem to me that the chief beneficiaries were those who were defending their homes.
A simplistic answer - a more nuanced one would be to ask why is it that so many people who apparently "need" to be "helped" in this way are "those with records of crime and violence"??
where are the vast numbers of good righteous law abiding citizens (for the sake of argument....) using it??
the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: burdman30ott6
I am aware of that - it is not actually relevant to the conclusions of the 2 studies I have linked to.