Robb discusses "Stand Your Ground" laws, which anti-gun folks often erroneously refer to as "shoot first" or "license to kill" laws.
The reality of course is that such laws only remove the legal burden from the victim. He (or she) is no longer forced to take a particular action (retreat) regardless of circumstances, in the event of an attack.
That said, anti-gunners don't live in reality. They want to believe that these are "shoot first" laws that let criminals literally get away with murder.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Anti-Gunners - Fantasy vs. Reality
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The sad thing is that residents of Kalifornistan, even in their own homes, have a duty to retreat as far as the physical layout of their situation allows them before they even consider employing deadly force, no matter the threat being fielded against them.
Elderly, infirm, and disabled are pretty much screwed, and if the criminal coming after you happens to be faster than you... well, sucks to be you.
One almost have to wonder if the anti-rights nuts are the ultimate social darwinists - survival of the fittest, no matter the cost... but only certain tools allowed!
I never understood why anybody would insist upon imposing a "duty to retreat" on the victims. If a bad guy breaks into my home, why should I have to try to run out the back door or get out a window?
Even if I didn't actually give a crap about the sanctity of my home, it being my castle and all, I do have a large problem with the concept of turning my back on an intruder while trying to flee. Oh, hell, no.
I think I've seen this one on movies with a complete jack bauer 24 gear. For me, this is suppose to be implemented on a case to case basis.
Post a Comment