Summations Only

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

No, of course not. But you can't ask me a question, then change the question with added parameters. What are you basing that on, experience?- Oni

Once again, funny lyrics, dude. You had me rolling with this one. - Oni

Logic and statistics.

Your logic is based on inexperience, and I'd like to see those statistics.- Oni

My logic is based on logic, and you can find all the statistics here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/Homicide has the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime. Someone who has a gun pointed at someone is a far greater danger (and therefore more likely to be fired on) than someone who has just killed someone and put away or dropped their weapon. Cops generally don't see it as their place to shoot someone in revenge, but they do shoot people to prevent them from shooting others or themselves.Hence, to a police officer, the situation after a murder is much, much safer than the situation before. That's just incredibly obvious. They'll shoot you - and have - if they come in and see you holding someone at gunpoint. They don't even draw weapons if they come in and see you standing over a dead man and a smoking gun on the floor. (That's the context here, after all - who are the police more likely to open fire on.)

No, I won't do the work for you. You made the claim, you show me the stats. I'm not going to go find it. Where are you getting this stuff from dude, are you a cop? Movies don't count as evidence...- Oni

What makes you think I haven't studied police force doctrine and self-defense tactics?

That's easy, 'cause it sounds like you're full of shit and are making stuff up about how a cop approaches a murder scene.And I'd still like to see those stats, please.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

If obstinacy is all I can expect from you, we're done, I think.

Why you gotta make me look up words...I think we've been cool with each other in this debate, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking for stats. I also don't think cops act that way when approaching a murder scene, sorry dude.- Oni

sure it "could" but I don't care what other countries do, thats on them and there people. because it IS.
this is a yank issue, not a teabag one.I liked how you attempted to dodge the fact that guns allow the older people and less physical people to defend themselves and thus equal the playing field with a jokingly mocking song, thus showing us all what a joke you and your thoughts are. LOL, this just proves you are a typical condesceding prick from Canada; and that you really haven't a clue what you are talking about (as usual). Dirty Harry!?! Damn how fukin old are you? are you like 60 or something? lol, I think Dirty Harry is before my time. I'm Martin Riggs!!! lolololol and this from the person who talks about idiots on the other side. lulz

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?"(I presume you're talking to me, even if you don't seem to have figured out quotes yet.) I mentioned how old I am in this very thread. Did you read the thread or are you just shooting blindly in the dark? I just want to thank you for not being on my side. You make a stronger argument against yahoos with guns than I ever could.

Talking security takes more than locking doors and windows when you leave home. There are lots of other things to consider like back and front yard, inside and outside lightning, alarms and safes.
http://secure-your-spam.com/
I hope it will be usefulEdited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

It's not strictly the Castle Law, but maybe this would be a good place to discuss the Trayvon Martin case.George Zimmerman, it seems, was entitled to murder Trayvon Martin because he felt threatened, and according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, was therefore entitled to shoot him.Just to remind you of the facts of the case, for those who have been asleep.Martin was walking down the street not committing a crime in any way. Zimmerman decided that his behavior was "suspicious". Whether or not this has anything to do with the fact that Martin was tall, young, and black, I shall leave up to the pundits and amateur mind-readers.Whatever his motivation, Zimmerman called the police, who told him not to pursue him. But Zimmerman did. Apparently at this point Zimmerman did not find Martin sufficiently threatening that he wanted to try to avoid him, rather he deliberately set out on foot to confront the "suspicious" boy.According to an affidavit sworn by Martin's girlfriend: There are no direct witnesses to what happened next except Zimmerman, who claims that he felt "threatened". What we do know is that Martin did not produce a weapon, because he didn't have a weapon. What he had, in fact, was a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman, on the other hand, produced a gun, with which he murdered Martin.But Zimmerman, of course, is innocent of murder in the technical, legal sense, because having seen his unarmed victim walking harmlessly down the street, having stalked him, terrified him, accosted him, and pointed a gun at him, he then says that he found his victim "threatening"; and because he says this he was therefore entitled by law to shoot him.The connection to the Castle Laws as discussed on this thread is, I think, obvious. We have laws that say that you can murder people scot-free so long (a) they are in your vicinity (b) you subsequently say that you felt threatened or that you suspected that they were going to commit a crime. And that's it. All you need do is testify, truly or falsely, about your own mental state, and so long as you say you felt this or you thought that, you walk.Even if the case was to go to trial, no-one could convict, because there is always sufficient reasonable doubt about what Zimmerman or whoever was thinking when he pulled the trigger. Feeling threatened is a complete defense, and who but Zimmerman can say what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger? And this opens the door to any murder, no matter how calculated and cold-blooded.Finally, to see what a nonsense this law is, consider that by the same law Martin would have been perfectly justified in shooting Zimmerman. Zimmerman, after all, stalked Martin; we know from the affidavit that Martin was afraid of him; if Martin had drawn a gun and shot him he'd have been "standing his ground" --- so apparently the law is on the side of whoever draws and shoots first. Well, that's a comforting thing to know. In the Wild West, of course, it was the other way round, but now we live in more civilized times.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.