new Kansas law: you must shoot attacker or go to prison

[oldshadow]

America definitely sucks if you are a criminal piece of shit. We won't coddle you.

I mean what kind of country is it when you have to fear getting shot for robbing or trying to rape or just breaking into someone

 

[Like A Bas]

Has anyone else already pointed that this was amended? The link in the OP is from 2010.

http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/self-defense-statutes.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Just want to point out that it's about more than one clumsy piece of legislation, as you can see. The lethal cognitive dissonance displayed by brainwashed gun advocates is an important problem related to our self defense laws and our gun rights. It's gun range folk wisdom run amok, and should be called out for being the intellectual disaster that it is. I frequently hear people talking about never pulling a gun unless you shoot, removing the most important aspect of personal responsibility in gun use from the equation. It misses the point so badly that it both advocates for killing people for no reason, and advocates for failing to properly protect one's family, as it's an all-or-nothing proposition. And this nonsense is taught in almost every gun safety course in America, usually preceding or following that other disastrous piece of wisdom, "Dead men tell no tales." There is something peculiar to being proficient with a firearm that fools people into thinking they are intelligent.

 

[James Keith]

Doesn

 

[James Keith]

Just want to point out that it's about more than one clumsy piece of legislation, as you can see. The lethal cognitive dissonance displayed by brainwashed gun advocates is an important problem related to our self defense laws and our gun rights. It's gun range folk wisdom run amok, and should be called out for being the intellectual disaster that it is. I frequently hear people talking about never pulling a gun unless you shoot, removing the most important aspect of personal responsibility in gun use from the equation. It misses the point so badly that it both advocates for killing people for no reason, and advocates for failing to properly protect one's family, as it's an all-or-nothing proposition. And this nonsense is taught in almost every gun safety course in America, usually preceding or following that other disastrous piece of wisdom, "Dead men tell no tales." There is something peculiar to being proficient with a firearm that fools people into thinking they are intelligent.

The very very old advice that one should never pull a gun unless you intend to shoot is about safety and taking guns seriously.

The thing about "dead men" is probably a cynical response to the fact that criminals completely in the wrong still sue people and win.

 

[SammyPops]

shoot first ask questions later?

this is what I took away from the OP.

 

[Like A Bas]

The very very old advice that one should never pull a gun unless you intend to shoot is about safety and taking guns seriously.

The thing about "dead men" is probably a cynical response to the fact that criminals completely in the wrong still sue people and win.

It's taken far too literally by too many gun enthusiasts. Rather than a caution against brandishing and threatening when unwarranted, and a caution against hesitating at the wrong moment, it's seen as a hard and fast rule. We have an excellent example of how guns used as a threat, rather than being pulled only to shoot, is a great thing that saves a lot of lives. For prideful reasons related to GADS, or Gun As Dick Syndrome, people think that pulling a gun in self-defense without firing it is some holy action that only a certified, trained, and knighted officer of the lawrr is qualified to comprehend.

Dead Men is not a cynical response, it's a nearly universal admonition by GADS sufferers to empty the clip into any person you decide to shoot.

 

[oldshadow]

Just want to point out that it's about more than one clumsy piece of legislation, as you can see. The lethal cognitive dissonance displayed by brainwashed gun advocates is an important problem related to our self defense laws and our gun rights. It's gun range folk wisdom run amok, and should be called out for being the intellectual disaster that it is. I frequently hear people talking about never pulling a gun unless you shoot, removing the most important aspect of personal responsibility in gun use from the equation. It misses the point so badly that it both advocates for killing people for no reason, and advocates for failing to properly protect one's family, as it's an all-or-nothing proposition. And this nonsense is taught in almost every gun safety course in America, usually preceding or following that other disastrous piece of wisdom, "Dead men tell no tales." There is something peculiar to being proficient with a firearm that fools people into thinking they are intelligent.

The never pull a gun you don

 

[oldshadow]

It's taken far too literally by too many gun enthusiasts. Rather than a caution against brandishing and threatening when unwarranted, and a caution against hesitating at the wrong moment, it's seen as a hard and fast rule. We have an excellent example of how guns used as a threat, rather than being pulled only to shoot, is a great thing that saves a lot of lives. For prideful reasons related to GADS, or Gun As Dick Syndrome, people think that pulling a gun in self-defense without firing it is some holy action that only a certified, trained, and knighted officer of the lawrr is qualified to comprehend.

Dead Men is not a cynical response, it's a nearly universal admonition by GADS sufferers to empty the clip into any person you decide to shoot.

Every firearms instructor I ever worked with taught what I stated.

And they taught to shoot until the threat is stopped and your sure it is stopped once you decide to shoot.

 

[SirDiddymus]

He was talking about the region he lived in not the whole state.

As you note with DC, the murders are concentrated in certain places. Those are gangbangers in the projects murdering each other over drugs or other stupidity.

Most of the country is quite safe. The neighborhood the guy you responded to lives in is probably just as safe as any gun-free european neighborhood. Perhaps even safer. But his neighborhood everyone has lost of guns too.

Gars aren't what explain the difference. The US is a big heterogeneous immigrant country with a mixture of the west and other parts that the rest of the developed world doesn't have.

He said South Georgia, not his backyard. State stats are relevant.

 

[panamaican]

Just want to point out that it's about more than one clumsy piece of legislation, as you can see. The lethal cognitive dissonance displayed by brainwashed gun advocates is an important problem related to our self defense laws and our gun rights. It's gun range folk wisdom run amok, and should be called out for being the intellectual disaster that it is. I frequently hear people talking about never pulling a gun unless you shoot, removing the most important aspect of personal responsibility in gun use from the equation. It misses the point so badly that it both advocates for killing people for no reason, and advocates for failing to properly protect one's family, as it's an all-or-nothing proposition. And this nonsense is taught in almost every gun safety course in America, usually preceding or following that other disastrous piece of wisdom, "Dead men tell no tales." There is something peculiar to being proficient with a firearm that fools people into thinking they are intelligent.

Actually, most of this thread misses the point. It's an issue of what less reasoned people would call semantics vs. what courts and legislators are obligated to do - which is write/interpret laws that are to be accepted on their face.

Whoever drafted the original self-defense legislation didn't make it broad enough to include the threat of force in defense of others, although it was applied to defense of self. When it ended up in front of a judge, the judge was obligated to observe the letter of the law - which was written in too narrow a fashion.

The lesson we should learn is that laws should be better written to avoid mistakes in application. Instead we got a bunch of anti-gun nuts misapplying what's a legislative drafting error as evidence of poor intent.

 

[HugeMember]

He said South Georgia, not his backyard. State stats are relevant.

What happens in Atlanta means nothing with respect to my safety. I don't go there. I live, work, and carry out almost all of my business 200+ miles away. I do visit Tallahassee Florida regularly. There are some rough neighborhoods, but they're easy to avoid.

As far as the US crime rate is concerned, there are pockets of extremely high crime. They include certain places within the cities like DC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. Get outside of those and the crime rates are generally pretty low. Fortunately, it's easy for most to avoid such areas. Now, it's terribly unfortunate for those who have no choice but to live there.

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

Hard to imagine why Dorothy would want to go back....

 

[__Big_D__]

Pants on head

That's what freedoms all about, my man.

 

[Scrody]

well and I gave a Canadian example. what were the odds of 9 people over 3 locations being murdered? mustve been in the millions. maybe billions. that's my point. that type of violence doesn't happen in Canada yet, it did.

these are my thoughts on the matter. I don't give a shit how safe anyone thinks their town is, crazy stuff happens everywhere.

 

[RafailNadull]

these are my thoughts on the matter. I don't give a shit how safe anyone thinks their town is, crazy stuff happens everywhere.

But the probability with which it happens varies, and that matters a great deal. And those probabilities can be quite easily estimated.

Needless to say that differences in objective risk across locations do not explain differences in position re firearms well.

 

[Scrody]

But the probability with which it happens varies, and that matters a great deal. And those probabilities can be quite easily estimated.

Needless to say that differences in objective risk across locations do not explain differences in position re firearms well.

Not to me.

 

[Throttlehead]

I hear ya. Maybe it's one of those things where living across the border, things seem like a bigger deal than they are because it's not something you are accustomed to.

Living here, guns are just not a common thing. I know one person that owns guns. And he has jumped through hoops to get his guns. He lives in a rural area and he hunts, so having a gun makes sense. He just recently, after years, got a permit to own a pistol. With massive restrictions.

And to me that makes sense. I don't want random people walking around with firearms. To me that sounds terrible. But as an outsider to where that happens, it probably sounds worse than it is.

Its very easy to get guns for hunting, always has been, handguns is a completely different story and should be. When you get out to the prairie provinces gun ownership is as common as hockey. I have no idea why people even bother with handguns considering the restrictions.

 

[jlagman]

Its very easy to get guns for hunting, always has been, handguns is a completely different story and should be. When you get out to the prairie provinces gun ownership is as common as hockey. I have no idea why people even bother with handguns considering the restrictions.

You mean in the Prairies where everyone shoots a handgun on their back 40 because the nearest RCMP detachment is 50+ KMs away? That's the non-compliance part of the country.

Funny part is, even with the skirting of such idiotic laws, no one's worse for wear out there.