Thank you, Illinois

[palandri]

Castle doctrine. You can often shoot an intruder or attacker in many states with little legal implication.

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that doctrine, but good luck using it with a thief breaking into your car. Just saying.

 

[jaj324]

Bottom line, if you don't want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, fine, don't. That is also your right. But don't you DARE try to to stop me from exercising mine. That's not your place and it's a fight that you are obviously not equipped for.

 

[WPmunkey]

I understand that doctrine, but good luck using it with a thief breaking into your car. Just saying.

Luck seems to be on my side:

"But, according to these codes, Illinoisans:
1) Are justified to use force to protect themselves, others, the defender's dwelling, and other property of the defender.
2) Are justified in using "deadly force" ONLY, but GIVEN a reasonable belief that such force will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, or will prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
3) Using force justified by the ICC, have an affirmative defense to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of the "aggressor."
4) Have no explicit duty to retreat from a defensive role."

Many states have castle doctrine that extends your "castle" to mean property like your car. As long as you don't shoot the perp in the back then the only words the court will have for you are: "did you feel that your life was in danger?" me: "yes". Judge: "have a nice day"

It's really that beautiful, as it should be. It's not always that easy though, look at the Treyvon Martin case out of Florida. Zimmerman (the shooter) went out and pursued, then shot Martin. Zimmerman should go to prison imho. Florida has a similar but different "stand your ground" law. Then there is the man in Texas who dispatched 2 thieves that were robbing his NEIGHBOR'S house and if iirc, he served no time.

 

[mempko]

A car is not worth anyones life, or a threat to anyones life.

OP, you mentioned that your father would not shoot someone unless they drew a gun at him. What if the thief had the same reaction? What if the thief, like your father, would not shoot unless someone drew a gun at them?

Pulling the gun out is a huge gamble. Scarin away the thieves with a crow bar is one thing, but if I was him, I would not risk it over some car.

Now about the gun law. I don't feel safer going out. Frankly, I don't feel safe around police with guns. The reality is, people who carry guns are one step closer to using them as they are intended, tools of death.

 

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

I must admit, I live in a gun-free country (mostly), but that doesn't seem to lower the crime rates. You still see all these muggings, killings, etc, even in the UK. They just use weapons like knives etc. So my question is, is outright banning guns in the US really going to make the country safer? I don't believe it would personally.

 

[palandri]

I must admit, I live in a gun-free country (mostly), but that doesn't seem to lower the crime rates. You still see all these muggings, killings, etc, even in the UK. They just use weapons like knives etc. So my question is, is outright banning guns in the US really going to make the country safer? I don't believe it would personally.

This has been on the news here 24/7. As I recall from all the statistics I've heard thrown around, I think the violent crime rate per 100,000 people in the the U.K. is higher than the U.S., but the homicide rate in the U.K is lower than the U.S. per 100,000 people. I think Brazil has the highest homicide rate per 100,000 people.

 

[snowmutt]

I must admit, I live in a gun-free country (mostly), but that doesn't seem to lower the crime rates. You still see all these muggings, killings, etc, even in the UK. They just use weapons like knives etc. So my question is, is outright banning guns in the US really going to make the country safer? I don't believe it would personally.

Thank you SO much Paladinleeds. I have seen stats where assaults, bludgeoning attacks, knife attacks, and sexual assaults are all as high or higher in countries with gun bans. Violence is a society problem, usually at it's core is poverty or some sort of mental defect. Until high crime rate areas have a sense of hope and structure and we find a way to deal with metal defects properly, these acts of violence will continue. But that is such a HUGE undertaking it is easier to attack the method of delivery, not the core problem.

Understanding I am a big gun's rights advocate, I will concede this: Guns increase the tragedy in these situations. No way the recent tragedies in Colorado or Newtown are nearly as horrific without guns. I am ready to have that conversation. I do not believe the removal of weapons is the answer, but neither is blind ignorance of weapon ownership. Even the NRA recognizes that what just happened was a tipping point. People have a right to sporting firearms and protection. But the time has come for a long hard look at what is or is not actually needed for those 2 purposes.