"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"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.

And the counter to that is that just about ALL the people who choose to
carry DO KNOW what the laws in the state actually are.


These laws were part of a concerted agenda
by the NRA and others to have legislators quietly change existing laws or
add new ones.

AH yes
It's a HUGE CONSPIRACY against the ignorati on the other side of the fence.


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.



YAWN
BIG SMEAR with VERY WIDE BRUSH.
Too bad, that your knowledge of history is limited
There was a concerted effort to diminish if not destroy the 2nd Amendment at
all levels of government over the last 100+ years.
The people are waking and realizing it and have started pushing back.


However, I don't know of any state that passed a SYG law by referendum or
any kind of popular vote.

AND ?
Very FEW laws are passed by "referendum" or some kind of "popular vote".
Why should such laws be ANY different ?

They were quietly lobbied in. -Ask people here.

Total NONSENSE
The hoplophobes were squealing like stuck pigs during the process.


I'll bet a lot of them were surprised by how many states have become Stand
Your Ground states.

Maybe in the minds of the uninformed such as yourself.
The debate has been going on for a long time and the MSM (Main Stream Media)
has been ACTIVELY participating in the debate on the gun-control side.



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.


Only in the sense of keeping the ignorati misinformed
The media has been stirring the pot very actively making references to SYG,
EVEN THOUGH it's clearly not applicable


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.

Feel free to do your own research and show otherwise


Does your state publish the names of CHL holders?

Why should it ?


If not, how can you or a reporter tell whether a
shooting involves a CHL?

Because when it does involve a CHL it usually comes out in the police report
Even the leftist idiots should be smart enough to figure that one out

ON the other hand States like Florida and Texas, as well as a few others do
have a requirement of collect data on CHL holders who do misbehave
IN Florida, it was found that CHL holders are more law-abiding than even the
police. While in Texas, it was found that CHL holders have less than 15%
contact with the police than the general population

Have individual CHL holders misbehaved
ABSOLUTELY
Getting a CHL is NO guarantee that you're a saint
But so far, the evidence that we do have is that CHL holders do a better job
than most other people, and sometimes even the police
Hell, law-abiding citizens (not necessarily all CHL holders) shoot twice the
number of criminals than the police do, while shooting 1/6th the number of
innocent bystanders than the police do.


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


False argument
NO ONE made ANY claim that there had "not been any cases"
One also notices that your cite is about a DIFFERENT State that the OP
Which again goes back to the false argument

And let's not forget to take ANYTHING posted by the NYT with a VERY LARGE
grain of salt, PARTICULARLY when it comes to being anti-gun
This is also the same rag that would have gone down with Dan Rather in
Rather-gate, except for the fact that the paper chickened out at the last
minute and turned on Rather to save their ass.


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.

Did you cite for the OP's state ?
How do you know that in his state, that is not the case


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?"

TOTAL BULL****
Florida has been tracking permit holders from the day the law was enacted
And again, you confound SYG with permits
But hey, anything goes when pushing the hoplophobe agenda



snip

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.


Which studies

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.


"pretty sure " ?
SO it's just an opinion ???
Got it.

You're trying to equate not finding something with it not existing.


He wasn't but you sure are...


That's a logical fallacy that also known as HeyBubbing. (-: We ain't
BubBuying it.



Whatever
Don't quit your day job, bub

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?


So you know he's from Texas, and yet you argue North Carolina which JUST
HAPPENS to be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction

Can you say "disingenuous" ??

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.


YAWN
He was talking TEXAS
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction from North Carolina
Apparently it's not "disingenuous" but "intellectually dishonest" that
applies here


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.


Repeat of the same false strawman argument
NO one made that claim


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.


Pure projection on your part
But hey when all else fails, why not.


I suspect the difference is you're not looking very hard for what you
don't
want to find.


Since he was talking Texas and you changed the venue to North Carolina, why
should we care what YOUR argument actually is ?

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).


Projection based on presumption based on ignorance
Just for the record law-abiding citizens shoot more than twice as many
criminals than the police do, and they manage to shoot 1/6 the innocent
bystanders the police do.
But hey, fear-mongering projections are far more fun.
Right ?



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:


YAWN
snip

If you do a bit of research, you will find that most states have pretty well
near the same statues on the subject.



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.


What a LOAD of nonsense
NO one made such a claim
But hey, a strawman argument is always a good way to sound good.