Detroit homeowner shoots, kills armed suspect: 'It was me or him'

I think he wants no guns then it won't happen, but he is wrong

 

All it takes is for SCOTUS Justices to decide what it means. That day may or may not come in our lifetime.

 

It doesn't matter what YOU want it to mean. It matters what the SCOTUS Justices decide it means. Again, that day may or may not come in our lifetime.

 

Why are forming an argument against me that I never made? LOL

 

Your point being what exactly?

 

It's decided, work on something you can change

 

It isn't "MY" meaning. Simple English comprehension is what determines what it means along with an understanding of History showing what it means.

 

That's what I asked you.
What's -your- point?

 

Depends on the specific rifle round and the specific handgun round that are being compared. Surely you know that?

 

In general, a rifle round has magnitudes more energy than a handgun. It is all 6th grade physics.

 

More guns isn't automatically good (or bad), just different.

 

Not sure why you all think I wanna ban guns. I am in favor of laws actually working on the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd A.

 

Neither one of us commented on whether or not you do or don't want to ban guns in the posts you quoted. As such one has to wonder why you would bring up such a comment. Freudian slip perhaps? A subconscious guilt perhaps?

Anyways, since "well regulated" only refers to the militia, and you've been told this, then the only laws you should be advocating for are laws that affect todays well regulated militia, which in todays vernacular is the National Guard.

 

Which is why I'm glad I live in a free state where the homeowner is not presumed a murderer for fending off a home invasion.

 

Well regulated means "in working order": A well regulated bowel pushes out feces of a normal sort on a normal schedule. A well regulated clock keeps time. A well regulated engine runs without backfiring etc.

A well regulated militia is able to show up on a minute's notice when the call goes out and is able to function. To function all members of the militia must 1) show up with a rifle that shoots standard ammunition 2) show up with standard ammunition 3) show up with field gear 4) show up with food for themselves 5) show up with water for themselves.

To do that, arms need to be plentiful, personally owned, easy to acquire etc.

 

I think you really need to read the article. Notwithstanding what you said, the article said that he went outside fearing the destruction of his property. He confronted him, reached for his weapon after he "armed himself" and then shot and killed the person. I would say it was a handgun of some type, not an AR15 or something similar. This was "close quarters" type of situation and an AR 15 is not exactly what I call a good close quarters type of weapon.

 

If that's the case, you must agree then that only necessary and effective laws need apply.

 

Well, for starters, even though the Detroit Police arrested him, I would say he has a very good chance of proving self-defense based on what the article has stated.

There is a huge difference between defending your home, defending your property, and pulling the trigger when all else fails. In the article, he called 911, he waited for the police, the other person became more belligerent as he waited for the police, he feared for the destruction of his property, he tried to reason with him from both inside the home and outside the home, and he fired when he had no other options available to him.

Now, compare that when going to the bar, drinking alcohol, armed and legally carrying, get into a fight because both you and the other person had too much to drink, and then fire into the crowd at the bar killing someone despite claiming "you were in fear of your life." In most states, except two, you have to prove you were defending yourself. The other two states, the "stand your ground" states not so much where the police have to prove intent that you were not in reasonable fear of your life. Or in other words, as long as you are on public property or someone else's property not your own, then reasonable self-defense claims are not generally valid if you decide to pull the trigger despite the 2a being there.

 

I know in my state and I would assume all of the rest of them it is illegal to have a firearm when consuming alcohol or at least in a bar.

 

Why do they need to cuff him to investigate?

 

What is there even to investigate?

Are the homeowner who just called us? Yes? He broke the window and pulled a gun on you when you told him to leave?
Sounds justified to me, have a nice night.

 

It still depends on the rounds being compared, regardless of the "general rule." 6th grade physics will show that the energy totally depends on the gun and cartridge being compared. For example, a typical .22 LR in a rifle has magnitudes less energy than a typical .44 magnum in a handgun.

So to get back to your question:

The only correct answer is that it depends on the specific rounds and guns being compared, as I originally stated.

 

Yeah but you also don't know that much about the AR platform (not trying to rude) to make that judgement call. For many people, an AR pistol is easier to aim accurately then a smaller pistol counterpart. being able to shoulder a gun is a big help.

 

I don't know of any states that legally allow someone to drink and carry at the same time besides on their own private property.

 

Correct. Law are there as framework for how government should deal with behavior society doesn't want. They don't even claim to prevent anything. If laws prevented crime there would be no crime.