"HeyBub" wrote in message
Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws. Are
you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law with no reason
behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not understand what three out
of
five do?
The population? I doubt very many people in these states KNEW they were in
a castle doctrine or SYG state. These laws were part of a concerted agenda
by the NRA and others to have legislators quietly change existing laws or
add new ones. As we've seen with union busting laws, vaginal ultrasound
dildoing laws, anti-immigration laws, gay-marriage laws, pot intitiatives,
etc. the battleground for reshaping America has moved to the statehouses of
America.
However, I don't know of any state that passed a SYG law by referendum or
any kind of popular vote. They were quietly lobbied in. -Ask people here.
I'll bet a lot of them were surprised by how many states have become Stand
Your Ground states. I think that might change now that people are becoming
aware of what SWG is all about. To the bashers - save your breath: I don't
really think Zimmerman was a SYG shooting but nevertheless, it served to
focus attention on SWG.
It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body
bags rather than on ambulance gurneys.
In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor is
served
since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I can find - of a
CHL
holder shooting another bar patron.
That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation. Does your state publish
the names of CHL holders? If not, how can you or a reporter tell whether a
shooting involves a CHL? This article explains precisely why "not finding
any cases" absolutely does not equal "not being any cases."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...ong-hands.html
Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North
Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If not for that gun,
Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation would have ended harmlessly. "I
bet it would have been a bunch of mouthing," he said. Mr. Diez, then 42,
eventually pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to
kill.
The following paragraphs make it clear that the information you say you
can't find is very hard to find in the first place. Its absence is proof of
nothing other than how difficult it is to match public shootings with very
private lists of CHL holders. The data that's available nowhere near as
rosy as you suggest and tends to support Bill's view on things. The
Zimmerman shooting may lead to a much closer look at these SYG laws now as
people ask themselves "when did we pass *that* law?"
The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of
a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain
public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare,
detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in
one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors,
excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found
when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees.
While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more
than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed
murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun. Among them
was Bobby Ray Bordeaux Jr., who had a concealed handgun permit despite a
history of alcoholism, major depression and suicide attempts. In 2008, he
shot two men with a .22-caliber revolver, killing one of them, during a
fight outside a bar.
CHL holders become neither angels or devils when they get their "carry
ticket." But they do remain people and they have all of the failings of
people. A number of the studies I've looked at say that once a person gets
a CHL, he's often able to keep it despite no longer qualifying for any
number of serious reasons. Followup is very poor.
You're worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.
Sorry, Bill's right and it's not that remote at all. Plenty of permit
holders in plenty of states kill plenty of patrons in bars while drunk.
Although the above shooting by Bobby Ray is just North Carolina, they allow
reasonable extrapolation. I've seen cases in other states where CHL holders
killed people in bars.
My state is governed by case law and not statute. That means you really
take your chances applying deadly force as a private citizen. If you cut
loose with a pistol in a barfight in Baltimore where no one else had a gun,
I'm pretty sure that if you weren't a cop, you'd be going to jail.
You're trying to equate not finding something with it not existing.
That's a logical fallacy that also known as HeyBubbing. (-: We ain't
BubBuying it.
We can also carry concealed in churches,
hospitals, the state capitol, libraries, parks, and the governor's office!
Again, no untoward happenings recorded.
Who is we? All CHL holders everywhere? In Texas? You and your squeezette?
Whatcha mean "we" kimosabe?
To whom did those untoward happenings not happen? To you? To everyone? As
far as you can tell? Certainly not to the shooting victims in North
Carolina.
If you think about it, your claims just don't pass the common sense test.
To suddenly have a population of angelic CHL holders who do no wrong ever
just isn't believable. They are fallible human beings.
It may be that Texans are more mild-mannered than the folks in your state,
but I suspect the real difference is in your fears versus reality.
I suspect the difference is you're not looking very hard for what you don't
want to find.
Further, if a fight DOES break out, with pool cues and chairs sailing
around
like ducks on a bug, I certainly would want to be armed.
Decades, no century of case law disagree with you. The law's position is
"you would want to leave." While the line has blurred somewhat lately, the
application of deadly force is still very tricky business. In something
like a barfight where the other participants are unarmed and you have the
ability to escape you'll still go on trial for some sort of offense. As a
police reporter my CHL training was specifically job related and it dealt
with - at great lengths - the difference between deadly force applied by a
sworn officer of the law and a shooting by a private citizen (basically
every one who is NOT a sworn LEO).
Your advice may be great for Texans, but even though many states are SYG and
castle doctrine states, they have some serious exceptions to the application
of deadly force. That means you damn well better know the right answers to
questions the cops will ask you after the shooting.
Here's just one example:
Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another
crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or
to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not
specifically removed)
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...7-Asec107.html
Guess the trick question you'll be asked . . .
If someone was packing, out and about the
town runing erands and whatnot, and someone
looks at them funny, and they think they are
threatened, they have the right under this law
to defend themselves from this looker, even to
the death. Now you think this is a stretch, but
this is real life and anything can and does happen.
There's an old saying: "An armed society frowns on those who look funny."
I'm all for CHL's - as long as you make sure you keep them from kooks,
brandishers, froteurs, psychos, murdering Muslim US Army majors, convicted
felons, alcoholics, illegal aliens, Catholic priests and a few other types.
Oh, and as long as you make them pass a range test - like cops have to, take
at least 20 hours of courses on the laws pertaining to deadly force in their
state and perhaps a few other conditions. People take proficiency tests and
other exams to be able to drive a deadly weapon. It's not too much to ask
the same of someone looking to carry one. Maybe even mandatory insurance,
just like automobiles.
Now that a number of states have enacted new carry laws the earlier research
that showed only good outcomes is beginning to tarnish.
--
Bobby G.