More Guns Means We Are Safer, Right?

Leonthecat said:
Lawyer: 'Castle doctrine' unlikely to apply in fatal Raleigh shooting
RALEIGH, N.C. — A lawyer who once killed two men trying to rob his home said Wednesday that a Raleigh homeowner charged in a weekend shooting death likely won't be able to argue he was defending his property when he fired. 16

Kouren-Rodney Bernard Thomas, 20, was killed outside 3536 Single Leaf Lane early Sunday. Homeowner Chad Cameron Copley, 39, has been charged with first-degree murder in the case and remains in the Wake County jail without bond.

Copley called 911 shortly before 1 a.m. Sunday to complain about armed "hoodlums" racing and vandalizing his neighborhood and telling police he was ready to take action.

"I'm locked and loaded, and I'm going to secure the neighborhood," he told a dispatcher.

About seven minutes later, his wife called 911 to report the shooting, and he took the phone from her and said he had shot in self-defense.

"They do have firearms, and I'm trying to protect myself and my family," he said, noting that he had fired a warning shot that might have hit someone.

Investigators said Copley fired a shotgun through a window from inside his garage, striking Thomas, who was outside.

Under North Carolina's "castle doctrine," someone has the right to use deadly force to defend his or her home, vehicle or workplace from an imminent threat.

"One of the requirements is that person against whom the force is used is either in the home or attempting to get in the home," said Raleigh attorney Karl Knudsen. "If the deceased was not physically on the shooter's property, than the castle doctrine does not apply."

Copley never told 911 dispatchers that someone was trying to get into his home. Police, however, haven't said exactly where Thomas was when he was shot.

"The law presumes that you were in fear of serious bodily injury or death," Knudsen said.

He has some personal experience with protecting his home and family. Two men tried to rob him in his home in the early 1980s while he was inside with his wife and newborn baby. They shot him, and he fired back, killing both men.

Knudsen also noted that the castle doctrine law has no provision for any warning shot.

"In that case, you don't fire warning shots. You shoot the person who is threatening you," he said. "By definition, a warning shot is something to say, 'Hey, I'm armed. Go away.' They're typically fired up in the air, not horizontally into a group of people."

Copley also told the 911 dispatcher that he was "on neighborhood watch" at the time, but other residents in the Neuse Crossing subdivision said Wednesday their neighborhood has no organized watch program.

http://www.wral.com/lawyer-castle-doctrine-unlikely-to-apply-in-fatal-raleigh-shooting/15918476/
Click to expand...

In the case this thread is about, the perceived threat was inside the home. The link you provided was about a guy shooting someone who was simply on his property. Why can't that distinction penetrate your thick skull?

Investigators said Copley fired a shotgun through a window from inside his garage, striking Thomas, who was outside.

Under North Carolina's "castle doctrine," someone has the right to use deadly force to defend his or her home, vehicle or workplace from an imminent threat.

"One of the requirements is that person against whom the force is used is either in the home or attempting to get in the home," said Raleigh attorney Karl Knudsen. "If the deceased was not physically on the shooter's property, than the castle doctrine does not apply."
Click to expand...
 
Sirthinksalot said:
In the case this thread is about, the perceived threat was inside the home. The link you provided was about a guy shooting someone who was simply on his property. Why can't that distinction penetrate your thick skull?
Click to expand...

He thought he was covered.
He was wrong.
LOL
Does that mean he was a "piece of shit" too?
 
Leonthecat said:
He thought he was covered.
He was wrong.
LOL
Does that mean he was a "piece of shit" too?
Click to expand...

No, the guy who intentionally left his garage door open, then waited for someone to come in while holding a loaded shotgun, then shot the guy without a word was the piece of shit. Try to keep up.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
In the case this thread is about, the perceived threat was inside the home. The link you provided was about a guy shooting someone who was simply on his property. Why can't that distinction penetrate your thick skull?
Click to expand...
From the several posts of his that I have read, the reason that is would probably be because he isn't very intelligent.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
You were talking about Castle doctrine. Did you not realize "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" are separate and distinct?
Click to expand...

Of course.
Gun nuts believe the combination allows free reign to shoot anyone that they "feel" could be a threat.
Many of them find themselves in prison.
LOL
 
Leonthecat said:
Of course.
Gun nuts believe the combination allows free reign to shoot anyone that they "feel" could be a threat.
Many of them find themselves in prison.
LOL
Click to expand...

You have already shown you have zero understanding of how gun laws work. You managed to cite a few obscure cases of maniacs shooting people with no legal justification. Comically enough your understanding of the law is on par with the lunatics who's cases you linked...
Congratulations???
 
Sirthinksalot said:
You have already shown you have zero understanding of how gun laws work. You managed to cite a few obscure cases of maniacs shooting people with no legal justification. Comically enough your understanding of the law is on par with the lunatics who's cases you linked...
Congratulations???
Click to expand...

Of course if you are the one of the people shot or family member of one of the people shot they seem a like a lot more and a lot less obscure.
 
domer76 said:
Not one study, dumbfuck, has indicated a causal link between more guns and less crime.

Keep struggling, halfwit.
Click to expand...

Well it would be difficult to design a randomized controlled study. Of course you could be in the control group.

I know you think this makes for a phenomenal argument, but it really doesn’t matter. The right to defend oneself is inherent. You are born with it. Whether it is in the Constitution or not, we still have that right. At question is whether the government will protect that right. We have that protection. You aren’t taking it away. PERIOD

It doesn’t matte how many David Hogg’s you hide behind.
 
Leonthecat said:
Shootings of family members who are mistaken for intruders are quite common.
Need to see more data?

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show

Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.

GUNS MAKE US LESS SAFE

...One of the problems with the [2004] debate was its focus on whether states that have concealed carry laws have seen declining crime rates. Both sides cited studies that showed crimes either declining or increasing in concealed carry states.

But...

A gun in the home -- thus available for self-defense -- is 22 times more likely to be used in an assault or homicide, an accidental shooting or a suicide or attempted suicide.

Researchers reached this conclusion by studying hospital admissions, emergency medical technician reports, police and medical examiner files in 626 shootings in or around a residence in three cities: Galveston, Texas; Seattle, Wash.; and Memphis, Tenn., for between 12 and 18 months.

The study was published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, in August 1998, by Dr. Arthur Kellerman of Emory University in Atlanta and four other authors. Their study was supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


In those shootings studied by Kellerman and the co-authors, only 13 were in self-defense or were legally justifiable, and that included three shootings by law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.

By contrast, 54 shootings were unintentional, 118 were attempted or completed suicides, and the vast majority of these shootings -- 438 -- were assaults or homicides.

Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.

These facts, the sad headlines, and the huge medical bills and family traumas behind them, are even more numbing when you consider that guns kept at home are supposed to be locked away to prevent their misuse.

Common sense would dictate that a lethal weapon be kept secure and unavailable, but the rates of accidental and suicidal shootings suggest these guns are not kept under lock and key.

Instead they are readily, and recklessly and painfully, available to the wrong hands -- which Kellerman and his colleagues showed happens -- by a factor of 22.

Now consider that the gun lobby wants to make it legal to bring some of these guns out of the house, without a closet door or trigger lock to prevent their accidental or criminal use, and into the stresses and surprises of everyday life.

Put those guns in someone's pocket, or in the car, or a briefcase, backpack or purse and you logically increase the likelihood that there will be an accidental or wrongful discharge. Such as a split-second and irrevocable pull of a trigger in response to a perceived threat or in a moment of road rage.

Or when someone is handed a pink slip. Or in a domestic argument after one too many beers.

The core of the argument for concealed carry is that guns make people safer. The presence of guns in the home -- by a factor of 22 on the wrong side of the equation -- shows that firearms that could be used in self-defense actually make many more people unsafe, injured and dead.

http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/184209741.html
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter. 2nd Amendment ain’t going anywhere
 
Bourbon said:
When shoot an unarmed person who is no threat to you ... it's called Murder.

... and their time is coming, and don't expect me to put on any arm band.
Click to expand...

Under my state's laws, I get to make the determination whether the person was a threat or not. You don't.
 
CFM said:
You're the one that didn't show to them. Seems your bitch carries them around in her purse like the rest of the pussies on this forum.
Click to expand...


So what happen to you, did your Mother get Raped by a Big Black Man and made you watch ... ?

Is that why you have these phobias :laugh: internet guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top