When did you use your gun defensively?

In the defensive use studies

How Many Times Are Guns Used in Self Defense Each Year?
https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
How Guns Were Used – Were Shots Fired?
No shots were fired in 81.9% of those defensive use cases. 50.9% of the time, displaying the firearm was sufficient to scare off the attacker; 31% of the time, simply telling someone they were armed prevented the attack from taking place. Only 18.1% of the time was firing the gun required to defend their life.

Its not meant to prove anything. It answers the question in the thread title.

 

31% is too small of a number to bet ones life on, better to have a gun then to need a gun.

 

You don't seem to get this is an emergency situation, due process comes on the back end. Do you need to sign medical consent before I start CPR?

 

Is it an actual emergency every single time? Can the government use "emergency situation" to ignore the Bill of Rights every single time?

Are you being accused of a crime? Are you taking away my rights by giving me CPR?

 

There is lot of crime where I live, and pretty much all my neighbors have guns, Dems and Repubs alike.

 

Incorrect, this do not rise to the level of an emergency that overrides due process and a person's rights.

Irrelevant.

 

And thus, those who support red flag laws support confiscating guns from the law abiding.

 

All without due process, with many Red Flag Laws it only takes is an "accusation" from a angry family member or a PO'ed spouse to invoke the RF law.

 

Red Flag laws are an anti-gun leftist's wet dream.

 

Depends if I need CPR or not. If you can't decern that you have no business administering it.

You need more evidence than me not breathing to determine whether or not the government can violate my rights.

Saying it's okay to violate the rights of people who may be mentally handicapped is to say such people do not deserve rights.

Red flag is nothing but an excuse to violate rights without due process.

 

Powerline and NW 9th are the same street. I live less than a mile from Lowe’s on OPB and Powerline. Small world.

 

You're right, "Red Flag" laws are ripe for abuse by any emotionally disturbed, vengeful and angry spouse, neighbor or relative.

The only way that Red Flag laws could hope to work is to make in enormously costly to abuse the reporting criteria

 

It seems you people value "freedom" over someone else's life.

The police are there to evaluate the situation and determine if it is an emergency. Are the police correct every single time? Who is? If it is judged the person is not able to make rational decisions like a paranoid schizophrenic who is going to shoot the next lizard man he sees or gramps loading his gun because he can't take it anymore, then "due process" needs to come on the back end, before someone gets dead, and that process is written into the law.

 

100% false, I value the freedom to protect my life, what happens with someone else's life, should they be a threat to my life is a decision they made, not I.

 

that's idiotic. My possession of firearms doesn't cost anybody their life.

Further my right to live free does Trump someone's life if they are threatening me.

no they aren't. Normally when crimes are committed police aren't there at all. They typically have to be called after the fact because people don't know what's going to happen before it happens.

I wouldn't want them there I don't want to live in a police state. If you want to trust the police to come render aid 30 minutes after you needed them to that's your business.

If it is judged yes you don't get your rights taken from you without due process. If you don't like that I'm sorry you don't like the Constitution but that's what we live by you.

 

Fact remains:
If you support red flag laws, you support taking guns from the law abiding.

 

The entire Bill of Rights values rights over life.

 

100% false? It sounds more like you agree with my statement. Grandma shouldn't be able to call 911 as gramps threatens to blow his brains out.

You seem to be a little off track. That statement was in reference to red flag laws. I don't know what conversation you were responding to. Your "right to live free does Trump someone's life if they are threatening me", even if they are lizard men?
And yes the police are there to evaluate the validity of the call, which they have done many times. Talking about police coming after the "crime" and arriving after the fact, you seem to be on another thread.

What a nuanced response....here's mine....is an irrational person a law abiding citizen?

Okay, then go shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

 

No it doesn't.

THE LEFT NEEDS A REFRESHER: Rights and Government.

​

The Bill of Rights reminds government that it has limits. You seem to be in the grips of an extreme form of safetyism.

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.

​

"Consider what it means if rights only exist because the government says they do. That directly implies that rights don’t exist if the government says they don’t. If you take that position, then nothing government does can ever be “wrong”."

Spain:

"In March of 1492, the then government of Spain, specifically the Joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, ordered the expulsion of all the practicing Jews from Castile and Aragon and all their territories and possessions (including essentially all of modern Spain as well as additional territories). This, of course, was entirely proper (given our presumption that government grants rights) since the government is simply rescinding the right of those Jews to live in Castile and Aragon and possessions."

If the right to live there is granted, then that grant can be removed.

Cherokees

"In 1836 the “Treaty of New Echota” called for the removal of the Cherokee from all lands east of the Mississippi. Some few moved voluntarily in response to this treaty. However, in the end the Cherokee were forced first into concentration camps, then on the horrible Trail of Tears in forced migration to the west."

If the right to live East of the MS is a grant of government, then, the government can remove that right.

The Mormons

"In 1838 the then Governor of Missouri issued a proclamation that the new religion of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) were to be treated as enemies of the State and exterminated or driven out. "

If the right to live in MO, or to live at all, or to practice one's religion, was gov granted then the government can take it away.

Nazis

"In 1934 German law stripped Jews of their German citizenship, forbade them from marrying or having sex with non-Jews.

If the right to keep and bear arms is government granted, then government can strip that right.

If your right to live is a grant of government, then the government can freely kill you.

Therefore:

This is the foundation of our constitutional liberal democracy.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, securing their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The 14th amendment splits this with the terms: Privileges or Immunities. Immunities are innate, privileges are those rights acquired by virtue of citizenship.

 

Sorry about that I got another conversation mixed up with this one.

Red flag was are just authoritarianism you cannot take someone's rights away without them first being adjudicated.

There is no justification for it. That's like imprisoning somebody or seizing their home without due process of law.

If it's shown that someone is a danger to themselves or others the police can respond to that. And then the person can be adjudicated but you don't get to do that before and it should be unacceptable under any circumstances.

To treat people as though they are second-class citizens by stealing their rights away from them you are enacting a dictatorship and that is unacceptable.

 

See "Brandenburg v Ohio".

Why can't the government search everyone without a warrant to find drugs and pedophiles? Why can't we keep murderers in jail forever without a trial?

We'd be safer with both restrictions removed.

 

Straw, man.
You cannot show that anyone has ever taken this position.

That depends entirely upon his criminal record, doesn't it?
Why do you thing there's a necessary relationship between the two?
Why do you believe these conditions cannot exist independent of one another?
Why do you support taking guns away from the law abiding?

 

"If it's shown that someone is a danger to themselves or others the police can respond to that. And then the person can be adjudicated..."
How is that gonna work with gramps walking around with a gun saying he's gonna do it this time?

We would not be safer with those restrictions removed.
Brandenburg v Ohio verdict says inflammatory speech should be punished only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” When it is a danger to the public, something like the red flag law.

Hardly a straw man, it is the end result of your stance, if you were brave enough to admit it.
A rational decision would be to stay within the law. An irrational person does not make rational decisions.

 

Why do you believe this? If the police and government could ignore the 4th Amendment, pedophilia might be virtually erased. We could take tons of drugs off of the streets. How is this not safer?

Yet one can still yell "fire" in a crowded theater if the intent wasn't to incite imminent lawless action.

 

You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true

Funny how you are unable to meaningfully address my questions - it's almost as if you know you cannot.
Concession accepted.