Missouri Legislature upholds 'Stand Your Ground,' concealed carry law — requiring no

[Elan_]

Bottom line is guns aren't for everyone. I personally think it's good to see states go to a constitutional carry policy. If you don't want a gun don't buy one. You see and hear of very few legal gun owners having bad shoots. But guns though out the the country are used for protection at a very high rate. I never had a desire to get my permit until I had a gun brandished at me. We dove in to the house we were working on and called the cops. Cops showed up about 15 minutes later and told us to carry openly or get a concealed permit or don't working the area. Because he and his partner didn't want to get called to our murder. That's was enough for me.

If you feel that your life is not in danger when you go out then fine. If you feel that ha being an officer respond in 3-30 minutes if you need them great. I for one want to be able to defend myself until the officer shows up that I called in the first place. I will call the police first and foremost. But if I have to defend myself I would rather "Have and not need then need and not have".

This all makes perfect sense. I'm not opposed to people carrying guns for protection or even killing someone with them as justified. The point I was making was that "any forcible felony" is so overly broad it's ridiculous. Theft of $500 is a felony. Let's end someone's life over it.

My other point was the removal of mandatory training. I don't know what the training was before or what it is now, but I'd go out on a limb and assume Missouri probably requires more training to get a driver's license than to get a gun.

 

[mizzouxc]

Seriously though, my mind is blown. If your son didn't clean his room why not just break his arms and his legs? Because that's the stupidest thing you've ever heard, isn't it? Shooting people for crimes that even the state does not punish by death is absolutely mind boggling.

You said nothing about the removal of mandatory training so I'm assuming you think that's a stellar idea too.

And as a side note from left field, I haven't a clue what abortion has anything to do with this. You think my views on gun laws are informed by my views on abortion (which you got 100% wrong, FYI)? You're grasping at straws.

Read my original post for my thoughts on training. Typical liberal, making things up for me.

In addition only a liberal would equate disagreement or not cleaning a room with a felony. My mind is blown how you even come up with these correlations. Again grasping for straws and making up how a gun owner might escalate something as simple as cleaning a room.

Abortion = killing a human fetus. What did the fetus do? It sure as heck didn't commit a felony.

You clearly do not understand threat escalation.

 

[mizzouxc]

This all makes perfect sense. I'm not opposed to people carrying guns for protection or even killing someone with them as justified. The point I was making was that "any forcible felony" is so overly broad it's ridiculous. Theft of $500 is a felony. Let's end someone's life over it.

My other point was the removal of mandatory training. I don't know what the training was before or what it is now, but I'd go out on a limb and assume Missouri probably requires more training to get a driver's license than to get a gun.

Theft is not a forcible felony. Breaking and entering is. Armed robbery is. Child not cleaning his room is not a crime and doesn't enter this discussion.

You obviously didn't receive any critical thinking training to express your first amendment rights.

 

[ThorInc]

I think all can clearly make their points without name calling or labels.......that's what critical thinking is all about especially on a discussion forum. Now some people can try to push you to your limits but it's still up to you whether you cross them or not .

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Elan_]

Read my original post for my thoughts on training. Typical liberal, making things up for me.

In addition only a liberal would equate disagreement or not cleaning a room with a felony. My mind is blown how you even come up with these correlations. Again grasping for straws and making up how a gun owner might escalate something as simple as cleaning a room.

Abortion = killing a human fetus. What did the fetus do? It sure as heck didn't commit a felony.

You clearly do not understand threat escalation.

I did read your original post for your thoughts and it doesn't address mandated training at all.

Who said anything about me being a liberal? So far every assumption you've made about me has been dead wrong. You're off to a great start. I even told you your assumption about my stance on abortion is wrong and yet you're still trying to belabor the point.

You also completely missed the point I was making with the comments about the child. Have you ever heard the phrase punishment commensurate to the crime? It's a pretty basic understand that the crime fits the punishment. We don't send people to prison for life for stealing a pack of gum. It's not a comment about the law, it's a comment about what we as humans deem appropriate punishment.

You're right that theft is not a forcible felony. I'll take that criticism. I deserve it. TIL forcible felony has a predefined meaning and is not a felony that is forced.

Let me ask you a semi-related question. Do you think prison is effective reform?

 

[ndcent]

Read my original post for my thoughts on training. Typical liberal, making things up for me.

In addition only a liberal would equate disagreement or not cleaning a room with a felony. My mind is blown how you even come up with these correlations. Again grasping for straws and making up how a gun owner might escalate something as simple as cleaning a room.

Abortion = killing a human fetus. What did the fetus do? It sure as heck didn't commit a felony.

You clearly do not understand threat escalation.

"Read and respect my rantings while I insult you."

Good luck with that.

 

[1engineer]

Well, I don't own a hand gun and I don't think toting around a .22 rifle would be an effective countermeasure. If someone car jacked me at gun point, I'd give them my car.

You've deliberately built a straw man so you could make your argument make sense. I said nothing about car jacking at gun point. I personally would not shoot someone for car jacking me at gun point even if I had a gun. I wouldn't be opposed to a law that permitted it, but I likely would not do it.

You know what's a felony in Missouri? Passing a bad check. "any forcible felony" is so ridiculously broad.


Edit: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” Oh man, seeing that signature, that's just icing on the cake. I couldn't write better comedy than this.

Be honest with yourself for a minute:
I'm going to give you a scenario that probably will never happen to you. Unfortunately though things like this happen to a lot of people every year. Here it is:

You are walking through a park right at dark. There's people around but are pretty far away. A guy, high on some substance, jumps you from behind and knocks you down. He then kicks you. He points some POS hand gun at you and swears he will kill you if you don't give him your wallet. You give him your wallet but it only has $20. He goes ballistic and in a rage you see him start to pull the trigger. You A) Have a concealed pistol and know if you don't attempt to use it you know you are going to die or B) You have no weapon because...
If you had that gun would you use it or would you die because you didn't believe in carrying guns? What is your choice?

This scenario happens. More likely though is a home break in gone wrong or the person who broke in was on PCP.

Last year here in the hills we had a guy (there were witnesses) standing beside a little two lane road. He had a piece of wood. A car came towards him, he stepped out in front of it, they slammed on the brakes and he proceeded to start breaking windows in this vehicle. He apparently wanted to steal it. The woman got out on the far side. The man tried to get out too but (they were both in their 60's) apparently he wasn't moving fast enough so the guy smacked him with the board. He got up and tried to crawl away but the guy hit him again. This time the guy didn't try to crawl away. He pulled his pistol and shot the guy. A car behind them called 911 and they saved that guy with the board. He was high and had no idea what he was doing. Never remembered he said.

That's why carry is important. You might be that guy one of these days.

 

[Thefishguy77]

This all makes perfect sense. I'm not opposed to people carrying guns for protection or even killing someone with them as justified. The point I was making was that "any forcible felony" is so overly broad it's ridiculous. Theft of $500 is a felony. Let's end someone's life over it.

My other point was the removal of mandatory training. I don't know what the training was before or what it is now, but I'd go out on a limb and assume Missouri probably requires more training to get a driver's license than to get a gun.

So why are you so hung up on mandatory training? Most police officers are "trained professionals" when it comes to firearms. They miss something like 80% of their shots in a high stress situation. So mandatory training to prove you can qualify to get your permit will last how long after you pass the class? Unless you are shooting at a minimum monthly in a training situation your hit rate won't be crap anyways. You should shoot weekly in stress training situation if you expect to be proficient. So mandatory training would not really accomplish much anyways. But it would be a good way to generate revenue for the state approved proficiency test. (That would be required for completion of mandatory training correct?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mizzouxc]

"Read and respect my rantings while I insult you."

Good luck with that.

It's what I do best. Anyhow, I've had enough liberal logic for one day. Headed back to my "how to mount your firearm in your center console" thread. It's more informative than arguing with liberals about the constitution, things that are legal to do and how I'm happy that states are making the decision to abide by the constitution.

Military vets are also highly trained. I'm one of them. Firearms are an excellent deterrent; even if unused.

I'll leave you with this:

It's legal to own and carry carry and I do.

 

[Elan_]

Be honest with yourself for a minute:
I'm going to give you a scenario that probably will never happen to you.

I'm not opposed to people carrying a gun or using it in defense. I never made the suggestion that I was. Guns aren't for me because I'm too absent minded to be safe with a gun but I'm not at all opposed to other people carrying and using guns. I draw the line at opening up every "forcible felony" as a defense of deadly force. I would rather see the line drawn at defense of human life. If a life isn't in danger, keep it in your pants.

 

[Elan_]

So why are you so hung up on mandatory training?

So officers are so poorly trained that they can't hit the broad side of a barn despite being "professionals" so we might as well not hold anyone to a high standard? I'll pass on that. How about we dramatically increase the standard of proficiency that any gun holder has to meet rather than setting the bar at the least common denominator?

 

[ThorInc]

On the total other side of this, I remind myself that "dead men tell no tales".....best to be the only one that can tell the truth. Oh, and I am pro carry in a no carry country.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

So officers are so poorly trained that they can't hit the broad side of a barn despite being "professionals" so we might as well not hold anyone to a high standard? I'll pass on that. How about we dramatically increase the standard of proficiency that any gun holder has to meet rather than setting the bar at the least common denominator?

Well let's look at the costs involved with that. To truly be proficient you should fire between 100-1000 rounds a week depending on your goals for accuracy. After a year or 2 you can probably back down to a few hundred a week.

Let's factor .20 a round. At 1000 a week that $800 a month.

At 200 rounds a month that's still$260 a month.

So how would you propose we raise the proficiency standard. Only test people under stressful situations? Make them qualify monthly? I would love to hear your ideas. I have shot since I was about 12 years old. And I can put 90% on target quickly with no stress. Now have me run a few winds prints and do some push-ups to simulate elevated heart rate and adrenalin and I drop to about 50% @ 12 meters.

That 50% is good hits and 90% hit the target just not good hits. I shoot a lot.

Before you decide that standards need to be changed you should try to achieve what you think is a good idea.

By making it expensive to shoot wouldn't you be discriminating against the poor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elan_]

Well let's look at the costs involved with that.

I'm not suggesting someone has to meet proficiency goals to own or shoot a gun, but to carry one around with the expectation of using it on another human when the situation arises. You cannot convince me that someone should be equipped to kill someone else without any mandatory training. We have mandatory training to put people behind the wheel of a car and we can't have mandatory training to put someone behind a trigger?

Suggesting the cost of shooting would discriminate against the poor would mean requiring motorists to carry insurance discriminates against the poor. Well there's an idea, why not require concealed or open carry permit holders carry insurance? It'll pay for any accidents that come with toting around a gun. Don't shoot anyone in your first five years, great, your rates drop.

 

[Thefishguy77]

I'm not suggesting someone has to meet proficiency goals to own or shoot a gun, but to carry one around with the expectation of using it on another human when the situation arises. You cannot convince me that someone should be equipped to kill someone else without any mandatory training. We have mandatory training to put people behind the wheel of a car and we can't have mandatory training to put someone behind a trigger?



Suggesting the cost of shooting would discriminate against the poor would mean requiring motorists to carry insurance discriminates against the poor. Well there's an idea, why not require concealed or open carry permit holders carry insurance? It'll pay for any accidents that come with toting around a gun. Don't shoot anyone in your first five years, great, your rates drop.

And how effective is drivers education?Are more people killed by cars or guns yearly?

See these are textbook liberal agenda that makes it more expensive to exercise your rights. How about we tax the 1st amendment? Get insurance to practice your religion. Don't kill anyone in the name of your religion in the first 5 ears and your rates go down. See how ridiculous that actually sounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ol'Blue]

I'm not opposed to people carrying a gun or using it in defense. I never made the suggestion that I was. Guns aren't for me because I'm too absent minded to be safe with a gun but I'm not at all opposed to other people carrying and using guns. I draw the line at opening up every "forcible felony" as a defense of deadly force. I would rather see the line drawn at defense of human life. If a life isn't in danger, keep it in your pants.

So forcible Rape on a woman or man, or Armed Robbery, or a host of others I can come up with do not warrant it? Maybe kidnapping even?

Just curious

 

[Ol'Blue]

Well let's look at the costs involved with that. To truly be proficient you should fire between 100-1000 rounds a week depending on your goals for accuracy. After a year or 2 you can probably back down to a few hundred a week.

Let's factor .20 a round. At 1000 a week that $800 a month.

At 200 rounds a month that's still$260 a month.

So how would you propose we raise the proficiency standard. Only test people under stressful situations? Make them qualify monthly? I would love to hear your ideas. I have shot since I was about 12 years old. And I can put 90% on target quickly with no stress. Now have me run a few winds prints and do some push-ups to simulate elevated heart rate and adrenalin and I drop to about 50% @ 12 meters.

That 50% is good hits and 90% hit the target just not good hits. I shoot a lot.

Before you decide that standards need to be changed you should try to achieve what you think is a good idea.

By making it expensive to shoot wouldn't you be discriminating against the poor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that is why I loved the Governments deep pockets to pay for my training and shooting habits. 3,000 rounds a week man. Do the math on that, lol....

 

[Ol'Blue]

Well, I don't own a hand gun and I don't think toting around a .22 rifle would be an effective countermeasure. If someone car jacked me at gun point, I'd give them my car.

You've deliberately built a straw man so you could make your argument make sense. I said nothing about car jacking at gun point. I personally would not shoot someone for car jacking me at gun point even if I had a gun. I wouldn't be opposed to a law that permitted it, but I likely would not do it.

You know what's a felony in Missouri? Passing a bad check. "any forcible felony" is so ridiculously broad.


Edit: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” Oh man, seeing that signature, that's just icing on the cake. I couldn't write better comedy than this.

As forging as that quote is to you there is a reason I have it there and one you will never understand I can assure of that. Do a little home work on that man and maybe you will change your mind.

 

[Elan_]

And how effective is drivers education?Are more people killed by cars or guns yearly?

The question is not whether cars or guns kill more people but if driver's ed reduces auto accidents. A cursory look through google results says it does. Some results say the reduction is significant some say it is less significant. But the reduction is there.

Do you know that your first amendment rights are restricted when the health and safety of the public are a concern? Your rights end when they impede on the safety of others. Letting completely untrained people carry guns publicly is a safety hazard. I'm not saying don't let people carry guns. I'm saying lets make sure they can do it in a relatively safe manner before we send them off.

 

[Elan_]

So forcible Rape on a woman or man, or Armed Robbery, or a host of others I can come up with do not warrant it? Maybe kidnapping even?

Just curious

I'm confused. What you're saying is victims of rape, armed robbery and "a host of others" can't think their life is in immediate danger? I don't know about you but if I were getting raped I'd be pretty certain my life is in some measure of danger.