@ Foxy, Saturday, 3 January 2015 12:53:25 PM

Good Lord, are you channeling a Xerox or something? Because you constantly regurgitate and broken-record the same old, same old fodder entirely oblivious to the replies of the very patient (and admittedly some not so patient anymore) posters who sought to correct you on the previous multiple occasions.

Just one not-so-minor fact that you already know is fatal to your tricky rhetoric is that almost all gun crime and serious violence in the US is black on black, involving gangs and is drug related. The second hump in the crime statistics is Hispanic.

Might as well say that is multiculturalism for you. Far more evidence for drawing that conclusion than the obviously fallacious and misleading one you are inferring.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The facts speak for themselves.
Most countries do severely restrict private handgun
ownership, however in the United States there
are handguns in the millions, and weapons of this
type are used in the thousands of
murders that occur each year. The United States is an
extremely violent society, with a homicide rate far
exceeding that of any other industrialised nation.
A single American city like Chicago, Houston or
Los Angeles records more murders in a typical year
than does the whole of England, where even the police
do not normally carry guns.

We need to ask why then does the United States permit
such a widespread access to handguns?

I've stated this previously that one persistent belief
is that, since criminals have guns, law-abiding
citizens need them for self-protection.

Actually, gun-owning hosueholds are much more likely to
suffer fatalities from their own weapons than from those
of outsiders - as incidents have shown us in the past.
One study found that only 2 per cent of all slayings
in gun-owning households were for self-protection;
the remainder were suicides, homicides, or accidental
deaths, almost all involving family members, friends,
or acquaintances.

A second reason for the proliferation of handguns is the
belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership
is an individual right.

For granting this liberty to the individual, as I've stressed
time and time again, American society pays the price in the
deviance of those who abuse it.

It's too high a price for us to pay in this country.
In my opinion.

I hope some of you are sitting down,

Foxy I support your latest post.

Foxy, "American society pays the price in the deviance of those who abuse it"

You must be referring to the deviance directly consequential to diversity of a multicultural society. My post above refers.

The political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists are being confronted with the negative consequences of their policies. 'Gun culture' as the cause of all of that black and Hispanic violence? Bollocks!

What you and other leftist (not real Left by a long shot!) 'Progressives' are doing with your politically correct rhetoric is muddying of the waters and preventing any real independent investigation of drugs, gangs and black violence. That hurts the many people who just happen to be of black or Hispanic extraction, are decent law-abiding people themselves and desperately seek relief from the gang violence and drugs that surround them.

Obama played politics and nothing has changed.

Rhode Island has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine and is a “stand your ground” state, meaning crime victims do not have a duty to retreat before using physical or deadly force against attackers. The law extends the right of self-defense from the home to any place a victim has a lawful right to be.

The state’s statute reads:

In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 – 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in

Thanks to all who've consented to respond to this Topic. Each and everyone of your arguments are valid, and none are either right or wrong answers.

Just a couple of comments if I may;

It's a universally teaching, if one carries a concealable (licenced) F/A, for your own protection, it must be locked 'n loaded as the saying goes. Otherwise why carry it ?

If one possess a F/A, and a serious threat becomes apparent; Only draw that weapon 'if' you have the intention to use it. This dictum is taught to all police in training.

A situation where a person or police draws their F/A threatening someone with being shot, if they fail to abstain from whatever unlawful act they're participating in, is a folly, and leaves the person re police officer at a tactical disadvantage. There's only 'ONE' circumstance where anyone, including police can fire at another person;

If that person is under an 'immediate attack', and is in danger of being seriously injured or killed ! Alternatively; Another person, is under an 'immediate attack' and in danger of being seriously injured or killed, also ?

That threat must be 'real and impending', not 'doubtful or remote' ? Therefore if it's possible to 'withdraw or escape' from that impending threat, it's been held, it remains no longer lawful to shoot that assailant, because the 'attack' is no longer 'real or impending' !

This legal standard applies to 'EVERYONE', police included. Disregard that 'standard' at your own risk ? However there are other circumstances and legal arguments that may raise exculpatory evidence as a defence. The 'Doctrine of Proportionality' is such an example.

Simply, if any of us chose to carry a (licenced) concealed F/A - well it's a veritable minefield, and the lawyers will have an amazingly good payday. Moreover crooks don't bother with these impediments, or any other law that may constrain their activities. After all it's redundant nonsense to them ! It's only the law abiding citizens that seem to harbour any real concern about the legalities of their actions ?