Gun Permits

[spartan231490]

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

In defense of your security.

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

Hm? I'm not aware of any state in the United States that allows the use of a firearm other than to protect against harm to life or serious bodily injury[footnote]Edit: Specifically when using it against someone, I'm assuming target shooting and hunting are given.[/footnote]. If someone is robbing your house it can, and often does, lead to a circumstance where you could justify the use of a firearm, but I'm not aware of any state that recognizes protection of property as a legitimate use. Not even Texas.

It's not really as clear cut as that. Many states will allow you to assume you are in danger enough to be justified using lethal force if someone is trespassing and you have signs warning tress passers that lethal force will be used. Similarly, many states allow you to use lethal force if you suspect the trespasser to be armed, whether or not they actually are. In the case of a mugging type robbery, the mugger has to use threat of force to get you to turn over your money, generally that threat is enough to justify the use of lethal force. Even in the very tough gun state NY this is the case.

And lastly, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I don't own a gun, but plenty of people I know do and a good portion of my fiancé's family are pretty protective of their gun owning rights. I notice the OP is from England. I went to England on a Study Abroad. The biggest thing I noticed as different was the lack of menace and fear from other people while I was over there. Here, you go into a city and anyone who isn't known to you is a potential threat - of varying size (elderly lady with a cart? minor threat, might yell crazy things at you, might do nothing. group of young men looking aimless? mid-level threat, could be armed and dangerous, could be highschoolers on a day off just figuring out what they want on their pizza). Higher here, overall. I took the same sense of evaluating over to England with me and... no one was ever doing anything menacing enough for me to trigger a "fight/flight/avoid/engage" response.

I think, and this is just personal opinion based on observation here, the urge to have a gun to protect yourself here is higher because the odds of the people you're most likely to need to protect yourself from might have one are much higher, given the availability of guns all around. Being physically strong or good at fighting if you have to be isn't enough if what you're facing down is a firearm - gotta have a firearm to even that out.

I don't agree with it, personally. I think we (as a species) should keep the killing devices out of reach because we clearly haven't matured enough not to use them on each other just yet. That's a little philosophical for most people, but there it is.

 

[Nghtgnt]

I plan on at some point in my life buying an M1 rifle, primarily because of the historical significance.

 

[LetalisK]

It's not really as clear cut as that. Many states will allow you to assume you are in danger enough to be justified using lethal force if someone is trespassing and you have signs warning tress passers that lethal force will be used. Similarly, many states allow you to use lethal force if you suspect the trespasser to be armed, whether or not they actually are. In the case of a mugging type robbery, the mugger has to use threat of force to get you to turn over your money, generally that threat is enough to justify the use of lethal force. Even in the very tough gun state NY this is the case.

And lastly, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Okay, the first one is a good point, but I think the second one is to give the victims the benefit of the doubt in order to protect themselves(could be said of the first one too, but that's more iffy). However, either way I found I'm wrong as Texas does indeed allow one to use deadly force to protect property and I figure they're not the only one.

Given what I have read earlier in the thread, I'm pretty sure that everyone is talking about a mugging.

And I thought people were conflating protecting life and protecting property, hence why I brought up examples that would not necessarily endanger life. But it's a moot point now.

Even then, a person robbing your home might not be aware of you, and you could try to tell him to freeze and get on the ground, but unless you are absolutely sure that he doesn't have a buddy who is armed, in a position to sneak up on you, or in a position to take one of your family members hostage, he is still responsible for contributing to a threat of imminent bodily harm.

That would fall under the "but it can develop into a life threatening situation" caveat of my original argument which, again is moot now and will be edited as such.