Summations Only

No they weren't, although I would argue that being snatched out of a hospital is not much different. Here are examples that meets the criteria. Not all that hard to find.http://fox59.com/...ent-october-home-invasion/#axzz36k2S5tNy

quote:

---

Hill and five other men (Adrian Anthony, Demetre Brown, Alexander Dupree, Michael Pugh and Trae Spells) are accused of breaking into the home around 7:30 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2013. The men allegedly forced a woman in her 50s to drive them to an ATM, stole cash, shot her in the leg, and sexually assaulted both her and her daughter, police said.

---

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/64510332.html

quote:

---

A woman and her 8-year-old nephew were robbed and briefly kidnapped after a home invasion in Far Northeast Dallas on Wednesday morning, according to a police report.
The woman, who said she believes that one of the suspects knew her, said they were released only after withdrawing hundreds of dollars from two ATMs for one of the suspects.

---

Such a law would definitely violate the first amendment. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't think strict versus non-strict is the kind of analysis we are looking for. CT's gun laws had at least one gaping hole in it that even the majority of American gun owners agree ought to be closed.So no, I don't agree that gun laws can have no affect on gun deaths like those in Newtown.

That is absolutely true and you are also correct about what my point was. But I also think you are being a bit too literal. Background checks that keep people with mental problems from getting guns would would be successful in many cases. But no, they don't keep you from taking your mom's guns.But mom knew her son had problems and did nothing to keep guns out of her own sons hands. And she paid the ultimate price for her error. My guess is that most parents in that situation would do a bit better.

That kind of hindsight is not a line of reasoning we can constitutionally indulge. We might note that in hindsight, that we'd be better of if Lanza's mom and dad never had Adam at all. In fact, that's the conclusion Lanza's Dad has come to. But it is not the kind of past fix up we can indulge.Whatever Lanza's mom's problems were, they did not raise to a level that would allow us to take away her guns prior to Adam's rampage and still pretend to respect the constitution. I personally am not willing to pursue things beyond that point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I agree with 212002. You want the behavior to stop, and you are deliberately pushing a 'kill' button and not a stop behavior button. Saying you don't intend to kill is just silly rationalization.And from a legal stand point, deliberately pointing a gun at someone and shooting them with the intent that the bullet hit them is intent.And as far as threatening someone with a gun. Law enforcement does that routinely and they often get the results they need from showing that they intend to shoot if non compliance continues. That is not silly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay. Now how does that relate to what I said to Jar? I don't disagree with what you've said or consider it unreasonable. I just don't see the relevance. Yes, sometimes a gun is an empty threat, but is the above the only scenario that law enforcement might encounter? How about the scenario where law enforcement encounters a thief coming out of a window with a gat in his belt and points a gun at him and says "Put the TV down"? Is the gun an empty threat?

That's fine. But the position under discussion has to do with changing someone's behavior by actually shooting them. My position is that when you do that, you intend to kill. That's why I question the relevance of the examples you have raised.

You are neglecting the gun in the thief's waistband.In the US jurisdictions I am familiar with, (DC and NC) The police can shoot an escaping armed felon. That gun in the thief's waistband makes all the difference. The policeman is not required to wait for the thief to pull out the gun.Police are also authorized to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a felon who has committed a dangerous felonly in almost all US jurisdictions. And a burglary while armed is considered a dangerous felony.So the policeman is already authorized to use deadly force in this instance. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Alleged? And what did marc9000 say about shooting an armed felon?The police are not limited to self defense. We ask them to stop crime. That means that they poke their nose into situations that ordinary citizens should avoid or flee from. I'm curious what you think a policeman is supposed to do when he finds an armed person in the midst of committing a felony.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Before you entered the conversation, a couple of us engaged jar on exactly that point. I'm not sure why you responded to me on some different point if you were addressing jar. Where did jar say anything like that?

Sure. So in the case of a non compliant thief with a gun in his waist band, a Canadian policeman will wait for the thief to make a move towards for his gat before he pulls his gun?In any event, I can respect your belief that protecting property is not worth the life of the thief. That is a completely reasonable expectation. But here in the US, the thief cannot count on that bit of politeness because it is not what the law requires before the policeman is allowed to use deadly force. Accordingly, when the Durham County sheriff tells an armed burglar whom he has come up mid burglary, to put the booty down and put his hands behind his back, the burglar should reasonably understand that the policeman is not making an idle threat. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I was going to address one or more of the questions you raised, but doing so would simply mean repeating answers already given to these questions. That does not mean that your questions are not thoughtful or unimportant.What it does mean is that perhaps when you enter a thread that already has 2700 posts, a good place to start might be looking at some of the responses already made and seeing why you might not think those posts are insufficient.Jefferson said lots of things. Some of which I admire, and others of which I find far from compelling. One thing I find amusing is that many people who champion Jefferson's stance of the 2nd amendment find Jefferson's thoughts on the 1st Amendment intolerable. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Here is a link illustrating that Percy posted evidence of exactly what he says about 2100 posts ago. See Message 735.Maybe you have a response to this evidence, and maybe you discount it for good reason. Your reasoning would be interesting to read, and hopefully you'll get around to sharing that with us. But your assertion that Percy looks foolish just made you look like an idiot.You are gaining a reputation here as being a blowhard with nothing much to say. Your disdain for the posters who disagree with you is also quite clear. It is also misplaced. Everyone here is just as smart as you.

What did Percy do to you? If you think Dr. Adequate or I have been too hard on you, why take that out on Percy?In the end, my opinion is not really that important, so feel free to ignore it. But you get to decide what you want your own reputation to be here by what you post. Perhaps if you hadn't introduced yourself to the group by casting aspersions on the "non scientists" before you had ever engaged them in discussion, you might be getting a more reasonable reception right now. But by now many of us understand that you think we're all idiots.Carry on bro.