Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Stand your ground laws are not consistant with The Legend of the West rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
I'm going to be 70 y.o. this year. I remember a time when movies were not shown on TV because it would reduce movie ticket sales. The producers of Westerns were the 1st to break this "rule" and so TV was deluged with Western movies. I know what The Legend of the West is.

In the Legend if you shot an "Unarmed" man you were very likely to be hung for murder. Even if you drew your gun first you might hang.

The West has been held up as a time when people had to defend themselves because the "state" couldn't do it. That law enforcement officers were few and far between and evidence gathering didn't exist. So, men carried guns as a matter of course.

In the Legend towns had to fight to get men to stop carrying their guns while in town getting drunk on a Sat. night. The Earp Brothers being leaders in the push to ban carrying guns in town.

But, now Stand Your Ground laws seem to say that if you "feel" threatened then you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a threat that may exist only in your own head. You can even shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity.

It is almost as if the exception to my 1st statement above was back in effect. That is, you would not have been hung for shooting an unarmed "Indian". So, is there the same unstated rule in effect? That is, can we shoot unarmed "Black men" with impunity? Just because we "feel that black men are a threat to our safety just by being near us". Is this why Zimmerman got off?

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
I'm going to be 70 y.o. this year. I remember a time when movies were not shown on TV because it would reduce movie ticket sales. The producers of Westerns were the 1st to break this "rule" and so TV was deluged with Western movies. I know what The Legend of the West is.

In the Legend if you shot an "Unarmed" man you were very likely to be hung for murder. Even if you drew your gun first you might hang.

The West has been held up as a time when people had to defend themselves because the "state" couldn't do it. That law enforcement officers were few and far between and evidence gathering didn't exist. So, men carried guns as a matter of course.

In the Legend towns had to fight to get men to stop carrying their guns while in town getting drunk on a Sat. night. The Earp Brothers being leaders in the push to ban carrying guns in town.

But, now Stand Your Ground laws seem to say that if you "feel" threatened then you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a threat that may exist only in your own head. You can even shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity.

It is almost as if the exception to my 1st statement above was back in effect. That is, you would not have been hung for shooting an unarmed "Indian". So, is there the same unstated rule in effect? That is, can we shoot unarmed "Black men" with impunity? Just because we "feel that black men are a threat to our safety just by being near us". Is this why Zimmerman got off?

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?



You can shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity?
I don't think that word (impunity) means what you think it means.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
TheDashi wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I'm going to be 70 y.o. this year. I remember a time when movies were not shown on TV because it would reduce movie ticket sales. The producers of Westerns were the 1st to break this "rule" and so TV was deluged with Western movies. I know what The Legend of the West is.

In the Legend if you shot an "Unarmed" man you were very likely to be hung for murder. Even if you drew your gun first you might hang.

The West has been held up as a time when people had to defend themselves because the "state" couldn't do it. That law enforcement officers were few and far between and evidence gathering didn't exist. So, men carried guns as a matter of course.

In the Legend towns had to fight to get men to stop carrying their guns while in town getting drunk on a Sat. night. The Earp Brothers being leaders in the push to ban carrying guns in town.

But, now Stand Your Ground laws seem to say that if you "feel" threatened then you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a threat that may exist only in your own head. You can even shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity.

It is almost as if the exception to my 1st statement above was back in effect. That is, you would not have been hung for shooting an unarmed "Indian". So, is there the same unstated rule in effect? That is, can we shoot unarmed "Black men" with impunity? Just because we "feel that black men are a threat to our safety just by being near us". Is this why Zimmerman got off?

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?



You can shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity?
I don't think that word (impunity) means what you think it means.

Yeah, that may be too strong a word? It does convey the concept, I think. Exaggeration for effect is a thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I'm going to be 70 y.o. this year. I remember a time when movies were not shown on TV because it would reduce movie ticket sales. The producers of Westerns were the 1st to break this "rule" and so TV was deluged with Western movies. I know what The Legend of the West is.

In the Legend if you shot an "Unarmed" man you were very likely to be hung for murder. Even if you drew your gun first you might hang.

The West has been held up as a time when people had to defend themselves because the "state" couldn't do it. That law enforcement officers were few and far between and evidence gathering didn't exist. So, men carried guns as a matter of course.

In the Legend towns had to fight to get men to stop carrying their guns while in town getting drunk on a Sat. night. The Earp Brothers being leaders in the push to ban carrying guns in town.

But, now Stand Your Ground laws seem to say that if you "feel" threatened then you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a threat that may exist only in your own head. You can even shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity.

It is almost as if the exception to my 1st statement above was back in effect. That is, you would not have been hung for shooting an unarmed "Indian". So, is there the same unstated rule in effect? That is, can we shoot unarmed "Black men" with impunity? Just because we "feel that black men are a threat to our safety just by being near us". Is this why Zimmerman got off?

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?



You can shoot unarmed persons to death with impunity?
I don't think that word (impunity) means what you think it means.


You can shoot an unarmed person and suffer no legal consequences for doing so after standing trial. As he said, hyperbole.

This is interesting -- I've seen Tripp that I recall use America's gun-filled past as a part of a narrative to say that America has a gun culture, and removing guns here would be different than in a penal colony like Australia. This is of course true -- it would be different -- but I think it's worth noting that as conservatives, saying "things should be like they used to and only change for a damn good reason" when it comes to guns should look at older attitudes to how things are handled.

I've heard anecdotal stuff about how a bar in Texas will end up closing if it doesn't allow open carry. I'm open to the idea that this results in less bar fights because of the disincentive to fight people are who blatantly armed due to inherent risk escalation, but I would want to see evidence before accepting that plausibility -- especially as my source for this was some random dude from Texas who also used hyperbole.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Terwox wrote:
You can shoot an unarmed person and suffer no legal consequences for doing so after standing trial. As he said, hyperbole.

I would add that you may not even be charged with the crime if this becomes the legal standard of what Stand Your Ground means.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Wild West wasn't so wild.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:
In reality murder rates were low in the old west. Partly because people were armed.

Yes, different areas may have experienced higher rates at a given time, but in general violence was certainly no where near the levels of modern democrat controlled shitholes.

How was the "murder rate" defined and determined?

Were all dead bodies that looked to have been shot considered "murdered" or just when a coroner listed that as cause of death or only after a conviction?

I assume that "rate" relates to the local population. But, was that the pop. of the whole state or territory? If so, is that a valid way to do it? If 90% of the people in a territory live in 1 town and a murder happens 100 miles away should those people be counted as part of the Rate of Murder in that area?




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:


What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?



In all seriousness, I think cops murdering people and violating their rights as a matter of course in carrying out the war on drugs, endless foreign wars where bugsplat happens as a matter of course, and a nation that routinely murders millions of their unborn, have all played a part in hollowing out the soul of a country that has lost empathy for the suffering of others and the lofty view of other human life being sacred.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
flamespeak wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?


That 'rule' never existed and it never should exist because unarmed is not the same thing as not dangerous.

So your claim is that in America today an unarmed man/boy can be dangerous to a man with a gun. So dangerous that it is OK for the man with the gun to shoot him in most cases. That the law should put the burden of proof on the man shot to prove that he was not dangerous enough to justify being shot or shot dead.

With all due respect, that is crazy. It is my opinion that you only think that way because you don't expect to be the one shot for being "Black" while walking home in the dark.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
flamespeak wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
flamespeak wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?


That 'rule' never existed and it never should exist because unarmed is not the same thing as not dangerous.

So your claim is that in America today an unarmed man/boy can be dangerous to a man with a gun. So dangerous that it is OK for the man with the gun to shoot him in most cases. That the law should put the burden of proof on the man shot to prove that he was not dangerous enough to justify being shot or shot dead.

With all due respect, that is crazy. It is my opinion that you only think that way because you don't expect to be the one shot for being "Black" while walking home in the dark.



By your same logic a woman with a gun who is attacked by a much larger man with no weapon better take that rape without firing because he obviously cannot be a threat.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHANGE WHAT I SAY.!! Look above where you quoted me.

I said, "So your claim is that in America today an unarmed man/boy can be dangerous to a man with a gun."

And I didn't say that you can't shoot unarmed men ever, I said "in the Legend ..." I didn't even say "in the Wild West". A man with a knife is armed. A man who is choking you can be shot. Where else to draw the line between "no danger" and "a danger" I'll leave to others.

I wanted to say that the burden of proof should have remained on the shooter, not be put on the one shot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
and the truth behind the legend - shoot them in the back or from ambush with a rifle or shotgun at all costs.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:


What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?



In all seriousness, I think cops murdering people and violating their rights as a matter of course in carrying out the war on drugs, endless foreign wars where bugsplat happens as a matter of course, and a nation that routinely murders millions of their unborn, have all played a part in hollowing out the soul of a country that has lost empathy for the suffering of others and the lofty view of other human life being sacred.


Skip the unborn posturing and I'm with you -- personally I'd put it as our frothy discourse around abortion has led to an erosion in the ideal of the sanctity of life, which is only subtly different.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
flamespeak wrote:


Fine, I will play your game.

Steve1501 wrote:
So your claim is that in America today an unarmed man/boy can be dangerous to a man with a gun.


flamespeak wrote:
Absolutely they can be. A 6'5 and powerfully built 17 year old can absolutely beat the brains out of the back of a 70 year-old man's head. I fail to see why one wouldn't other than the fact that they just don't want to, wouldn't normally murder someone, and all the usual reasons people don't just go around murdering each other every day, but the ability is there. A holstered handgun may offer yet another reason to give them pause, but they can still be dangerous if they choose to be.

But, being potentially dangerous is not a reason to shoot and kill a man.
The handgun on my hip should be enough to get him to back off. If not, then I draw it and aim at him, that certainly should be enough. If he keeps coming, well then ...

Snip ...

flamespeak wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I wanted to say that the burden of proof should have remained on the shooter, not be put on the one shot.


Stand your ground claims ARE investigated to ensure that the person involved was indeed defending themselves. The competency of some of those investigations may be questionable, but that doesn't mean they are not investigated.

I spoke about where the new law put the burden of proof, your reply said that investigations were done. I don't see that as refuting my point.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
flamespeak wrote:
My first comment in this thread was in response to the statement of

'What happened to the 'you can't shoot unarmed men' rule?'

I stated such a rule never existed and shouldn't exist because unarmed does not mean not dangerous.

You tried to refute that point, I pointed out how it doesn't really work when applied to similar circumstances and you wanted me address your point precisely, which I did.

You can argue about how the law is handled all you want to, that is a circle of logic to get kicked around by others.

My contribution to this thread was that unarmed does not equal not dangerous and therefor the concept of never using deadly force against an unarmed person as an absolute is a flawed notion.

I concede that point. But, not the investigation are done, one.

However, I did concede it from the start. From the OP.

Quote:
"In the Legend if you shot an "Unarmed" man you were very likely to be hung for murder. Even if you drew your gun first you might hang.

snip
...

What happened to the "You can't shoot unarmed men" rule?"


The last sentence is and was exaggeration for effect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Shushnik wrote:
Bahahaha.

'I'm an expert on western frontier life because I saw shitty westerns on tv'

Bahahaha.

You can't make this shit up!

Did you just call me stupid?

I only claimed to know about The Legend of the West in the popular mind as represented in movies and TV shows.

I never said I knew shit about the real Wild West.

So, who is the stupid one?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Congratulations on reaching 70.

Your premise is a little goofy because A) Western films were the Hollywood depiction of the frontier West rather than some historical examination of the reality and B) the confrontations were more often than not between physically capable antagonists with no recourse to legitimate intervention.

A few years ago in Seattle there was a story of an unarmed man shot and killed on a city street. No charges were filed. The shooter had a lawfully concealed weapon and was in his 50's or 60's. The "victim" was mentally challenged and in his late 20's or early 30's. Essentially, what happened was the younger man attacked the older without provocation knocking him down and proceeding to kick him after which the gun was drawn and discharged. As you might expect, there was some outrage over the shooting of the "unarmed man". An ER physician called in to a local radio show about the event and opined rather strongly that the the dissimilar physical attributes of the two men and the sustained beating and kicking could easily have resulted in crippling if not fatal injuries.

It's a Hollywood myth that "unarmed" means not dangerous. In the real world we examine whether a shooter has a reasonable perception of immediate and serious harm to themselves and others. I can assure you that being hauled into court on a charge of involuntary homicide is hardly to be confused with impunity.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Rulesjd wrote:
Congratulations on reaching 70.

Your premise is a little goofy because A) Western films were the Hollywood depiction of the frontier West rather than some historical examination of the reality and B) the confrontations were more often than not between physically capable antagonists with no recourse to legitimate intervention.

A few years ago in Seattle there was a story of an unarmed man shot and killed on a city street. No charges were filed. The shooter had a lawfully concealed weapon and was in his 50's or 60's. The "victim" was mentally challenged and in his late 20's or early 30's. Essentially, what happened was the younger man attacked the older without provocation knocking him down and proceeding to kick him after which the gun was drawn and discharged. As you might expect, there was some outrage over the shooting of the "unarmed man". An ER physician called in to a local radio show about the event and opined rather strongly that the the dissimilar physical attributes of the two men and the sustained beating and kicking could easily have resulted in crippling if not fatal injuries.

It's a Hollywood myth that "unarmed" means not dangerous. In the real world we examine whether a shooter has a reasonable perception of immediate and serious harm to themselves and others. I can assure you that being hauled into court on a charge of involuntary homicide is hardly to be confused with impunity.

It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Congratulations on reaching 70.

Your premise is a little goofy because A) Western films were the Hollywood depiction of the frontier West rather than some historical examination of the reality and B) the confrontations were more often than not between physically capable antagonists with no recourse to legitimate intervention.

A few years ago in Seattle there was a story of an unarmed man shot and killed on a city street. No charges were filed. The shooter had a lawfully concealed weapon and was in his 50's or 60's. The "victim" was mentally challenged and in his late 20's or early 30's. Essentially, what happened was the younger man attacked the older without provocation knocking him down and proceeding to kick him after which the gun was drawn and discharged. As you might expect, there was some outrage over the shooting of the "unarmed man". An ER physician called in to a local radio show about the event and opined rather strongly that the the dissimilar physical attributes of the two men and the sustained beating and kicking could easily have resulted in crippling if not fatal injuries.

It's a Hollywood myth that "unarmed" means not dangerous. In the real world we examine whether a shooter has a reasonable perception of immediate and serious harm to themselves and others. I can assure you that being hauled into court on a charge of involuntary homicide is hardly to be confused with impunity.

It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?



You grant me too much credit to answer that question. My interests are too broad to know of every instance or even the vast majority of instances in which stand your ground laws have been invoked in the immediate aftermath of a shooting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?

Depends on what you mean, there are a few cases of people drawing guns when threatened and then being shot themselves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?



Not quite sure what you're looking for here, but there was that asshole who shot a teen at a gas station couple of years ago, I believe he tried using the "Stand your ground" law.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
the manatee
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: your title.

America is filled with contradictions.

"All men are created equal" was written and ratified by slave owners.

"All men are created equal," yet we have an elitism streak, too.

We value individualism yet still expect you to conform to community standards.

Many of us call themselves Christians, but we put a lot more stock in material goods. Or the NFL.

So if modern ideas of legit gun use are at odds with what our legends profess, just add it to the list of contradictions.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?

Depends on what you mean, there are a few cases of people drawing guns when threatened and then being shot themselves.

This is what I was asking.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
It seems to me that the public's perception off how the West was is more important than how it really was for the discussion of "How should a new gun law be." How it was is also important, but most people don't know how it was. They only know the Legend, and they only know the legend from movies and TV. Only a small number have read a lot of the Western books like the "Dime Novels".

I don't know how it really was, so I'm comparing the new law to what I do know.



Sure. However, the Hollywood view of the old west is, in some respects, utopian as it is with so many other concepts tackled in the movies. Stand your ground laws may not be consonant with the stylized frontier concept of armed conflict. Then again, people who resort to arms for self defense don't get a stunt double to take the risk if things go wrong.

I used to be a news junkie. Now that I live in Thailand I am out of the loop.

Has there been even 1 case where a stand your ground gun totter pulled his gun and it didn't go well for him [in the next hour I mean, not police, courts etc.]?

Depends on what you mean, there are a few cases of people drawing guns when threatened and then being shot themselves.

This is what I was asking.

Well there was the case in Chicago of a neighbor argument where a man started to advance on an otehr, and both ended up shooting at each otehr. which of those was standing his ground?

I also seem to recall another similar case (I seem to recall it involved someone getting a gun out of a van), but sadly it's trying to find the right search term to find it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.