Why not mandate trigger locks and locked gun cases?

I don't know of any who don't think they should even have to talk to a cop. I would expect to have to talk to law enforcement.

 

Lots of you certainly bitch enough about the expense and trouble of going to court, and we are talking about what you want, not what is.

 

I would certainly bitch about the expense of going to court. In my case, it is most likely going to happen inside my home since I my guns rarely leave the house. If I kill an illegal intruder inside my home, I would expect to be given the benefit of the doubt and it should never go to court.

Disclaimer. It is impossible to cover all possibilities. I suppose there might be situations where I kill an intruder inside my house where going to court might be appropriate, but I am having trouble thinking of one at the moment.

 

So you think you should be able to kill anyone in your home, no questions? I'm seriously rethinking that dinner invitation (then again, I hear your sushi IS to die for)

I see what you mean with home invaders, no, I'm talking about street confrontations or robberies, like I said ,muggings, or what happened with Zimmermann. And again, I'm talking what some gunnies seem to WANT, and to be actively working for, with everyone being armed being a first step.

 

It would really be nice if you did not try to change my words to suit yourself. Notice that at no point did I say "I should be able to kill anyone in my home, no questions".

As far as the Zimmerman case went, the police did investigate. It went to trial and he was found not guilty. From what I could see, that was the only possible verdict given the evidence. I believe both Martin and Zimmerman was at fault. It should not have happened.

 

My apologies, it was a reasonable inference given your statement, at least I believed so, there was some humor inherent also.

The Zimmerman case shouldn't have happened indeed. If Zimmerman had not gotten out of his truck and pursued Martin it wouldn't have, yet Zimmerman walks free and his victim is dead. I find laws that permit that to be leading up to kirisute gomen.

 

Your idea of a reasonable inference is considerably different than mine. Mine says you don't change the meaning.

 

I misunderstood your meaning then, but that is why I asked.

 

~~~~~~
Meanwhile Russia has manufactured and supplied more weapons to countries and terrorist than any other country in the world. The AK-47 is so popular that flags are adored with it and children have been named after it's designer. Individuals in America have the right to own their own weapons for hunting or self protection or to ultimately protect this country. What justification can you give the AK-47, AK-74 etc.

 

No, the fact is that I am a former pharmacist. What you claim as the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals differing with each patient is correct. It is also quite evident that side reactions of these drugs such as depression, suicide, aggression have been noted. In the 32 cases cited these reactions have been noted in each of these cases.

 

I'm not a Russian and we're not talking about Russia or any other nation but the US, so I don't have to.

You might want to look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

What we are talking about is how to stop people from going on senseless massacres with guns, and one way I can think of that WOULD work would be to take away all the guns

 

So basically punish the many for the deeds of the few.

 

The right to self-defense includes the right to kill your attacker(s) if necessary to protect yourself.
You disagree?

This statement is false.

 

Did I accuse of being Russian, or any ancestry? I think NOT....
As of December 2013, the AK-47 and it's variants
The AK-47 is the most prolific and widely spread weapon in the world, with 200 million or more Kalashnikov's currently in use.
Russia not only distributes the Kalashnikov rifles all over the world, but also licensed its production in over 30 other countries, including China, Israel, India, Egypt and Nigeria.
People furnished with the AK-47 have caused more deaths than artillery fire, airstrikes and rocket attacks combined. It's estimated that more than three hundred thousand people are gunned down by bullets from Kalashnikovs every year.

 

Evidence for the bolded contention? I've never read that ever from a pro-gun person. Exaggerate much?

 

I would bitch about the problem and expense of going to court for a self defense shooting, but that doesn't mean I think that I should be able to shoot somebody in self defense no questions asked. You have a strange sense of logic, that I honestly can't understand.. I have bitched about getting speeding tickets, but that doesn't mean I think that speeding tickets should be banned.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of the Zimmerman shooting, but that's a different issue for a different post (and it's been settled by a court of law, that your view is not what the jury believed).

I don't know any gunny who wants an unlimited right to kill. That said, most robbers should all be shot and killed. Robbery, by definition, is the use of force (or threat of force) to steal property. That is a violent crime, and under most circumstances, should be allowed to be defended against by deadly force. (yes, there are exceptions). Every law-abiding person should be allowed to be armed at most times (i.e. if they have gone through the normal red tape required to get a CCW permit (which in the majority of states involves a fingerprinted background check, a basic gun safety course and a fee)). Everybody that is not in the process of committing a crime should be allowed to defend themselves against violent crime.

Nobody that I have ever read/talked to, wants the ability to shoot to kill with no investigation/consequences. That is a fiction created by your fervid imagination.

 

So in other words, it's impossible. There is no way to take away all the guns.

 

It's not impossible to take away all the guns. Somebody put them there and they can be taken away. It might be difficult but worthwhile things sometimes are.

 

How many people are you willing to kill to forcibly remove all the guns?

 

How do you get all of the guns from the criminals who obtained guns illegally? Do you think they will just willfully hand all their guns over?

Hell, how do you get guns from citizens who lawfully obtained guns? Sure, there will be those who hand theirs over willfully, but there will be many more who don't. How do you propose enforcing people to hand over their guns?

 

Irrelevant and off topic. Cite the supposed legal efforts underway that amount to creating a supposed right to kill. Demonstrate the accuracy of your statement. Point out what legislation is being referred to by yourself.

Idealistic nonsense with no basis in reality. The nation of Australia is plagued by a firearms smuggling operation currently underway. Even the yakuza of the nation of Japan are heavily involved in firearms smuggling.

False.

 

There is a significant difference between being questioned by law enforcement about the incident, and being dragged into a courtroom because some overzealous prosecuting attorney believes he can make certain charges stick.

Which was a legal act of self defense, because George Zimmerman was physically assaulted without just cause.

Just more baseless, unfounded nonsense presented in the part of yourself in absence of a legitimate argument.

 

Explain precisely why you continue to deliberately, erroneously claim that George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin, when the available evidence that was presented at trial, including the transcript of the 911 call, proves there was no pursuit being carried out.

Neither George Zimmerman, nor his attorney, cited any particular law in defense of his actions. All that was cited was basic self defense, nothing else. He was pinned down to the ground, giving him no other option since escape was impossible.

 

All of them, this carnage must stop.