"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"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...guns-and-some-
are-in-the-wrong-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.



You don't cite any sources. You have no credaility unless you can
back up these statement you make. You need to make your case with
facts.