If Mort Divine ruled the world

[The Ozzman]

Definitely preferable to 'duty to retreat' in my opinion.

In Ohio, if you have a 'duty to retreat' then that's what you must do. If you cannot feasibly retreat, then you may use your weapon. Castle Doctrine waives the 'duty to retreat'

 

[CiG]

Yeah that's a preposterous law to me. Retreat from your own home? Screw that. Castle doctrine no matter what for me.

 

[The Ozzman]

Yeah that's a preposterous law to me. Retreat from your own home? Screw that. Castle doctrine no matter what for me.

Well, there's no feasible reason why you would need to retreat from your own home. That's why castle doctrine exists. It waives that rule.

It's in that PDF I linked. Duty to retreat would be somewhere like a public place or something..

 

[CiG]

Well, there's no feasible reason why you would need to retreat from your own home. That's why castle doctrine exists. It waives that rule.

It's in that PDF I linked. Duty to retreat would be somewhere like a public place or something..

A link I was just browsing said that in many states you are obliged to retreat unless you absolutely have no choice.

 

[The Ozzman]

you are obliged to retreat unless you absolutely have no choice.

Well, right. However, castle doctrine waives the 'absolutely no choice' requirement.

 

[arg]

the problem is not guns, it's the muslims.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a good point about the - how shall we say it - visibility of the queer lifestyle.

https://medium.com/@laurencebarber/...e-won-with-platitudes-8f5eab2c2095#.6d6iff2uh

Basically, the normativity of heterosexual attraction creates an atmosphere of expectation around what an expression of love can (or should) be. A man and a woman kissing is compassionate, laudable, and somehow asexual; in other words, it isn't a sexual display, but a display of love (mostly in an ideal sense). A kiss shared between two members of the same sex, however, is no longer an expression of love, but becomes an expression of sexuality - considered irresponsible and inappropriate for public display.

An example would be all the controversy surrounding depictions of queer sexuality in various popular media. I'm thinking specifically of Modern Family, in which the portrayal of two men sharing an incredibly watered-down kiss was considered revolutionary. That speaks to our cultural expectations. Despite the impatience some people might have with the LGBTQ community, I think it's still necessary for them to demonstrate publicly and vociferously. After all, when straight people are murdered you never hear praise for the murderer from queer activists. There is no dominant cultural attitude that says "Straight is disgusting."

Just to be clear, this analysis describes cultural tendencies, it doesn't prescribe them. Aversion (in an evolutionary sense) toward queer sexuality might be biological; but condemnation of queer sexuality and its exclusion from the realm of cultural visibility is not.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't see how saying we need more pro gay propaganda is the solution unless you also say we need an "intolerant" mono-culture that happens to accept homosexuality. Otherwise, this will always happen.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Heh, 2nd generation muslim immigrant, democrat, shoots up gay night club with licensed firearms. You can't make this shit up.

Hoe can someone be a "second generation immigrant?" If you were born in this country you didn't immigrate and therefore cannot be an immigrant. Seems like a rightwing pseudo-concept.

 

[SentinelSlain]

It's a common term in Europe. It might make less sense in America, although, historically, America was demographically similar to Europe anyway, in terms of its white majority.

 

[arg]

it simply means your parents were immigrants. 1st and 2nd generations are highly prone to radicalization (if the 1st aren't terrorists already).

 

[CiG]

Well, right. However, castle doctrine waives the 'absolutely no choice' requirement.

I didn't think castle doctrine was something taken seriously by American courts.

 

[The Ozzman]

I didn't think castle doctrine was something taken seriously by American courts.

State laws:

Ohio Rev. Code §2901.09 eliminates the “duty to retreat” if the person is lawfully in his residence or in his or an immediate family member’s vehicle.

Ohio Rev. Code §2901.05(B) creates the presumption of self defense if the accused “us(ed] defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm” against a person who was “in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or ha[d] unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered the residence or vehicle occupied by the [accused]

I don't know how one can be 'unlawfully' in their residence but okay

 

[CiG]

Oh okay, so is Ohio more the norm or the exception?

 

[The Ozzman]

Oh okay, so is Ohio more the norm or the exception?

I think their castle doctrine is the norm but I would need to read up on the other states. I figure there's no reason to do that unless I move to another state or travel to another state with my handgun.

 

[CiG]

It's a lot to keep in your head. Big ass fucking country.

 

[Dak]

As far as I'm concerned, more guns means more gun violence (like Paul Virilio said - when you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck).

This is true, however the difference between guns and ships is there isn't another way to traverse and/or carry goods over large bodies of water. There are many other ways to do violence.

Allowing open carry laws in public places such as theaters or nightclubs won't reduce the number of individuals who seek to harm others, it will only (maybe) reduce the number of victims. All in all, I'm not opposed to people carrying guns if they want, although I absolutely admit that it makes me uneasy. I'm also not opposed to any venue, public or private (restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, schools, etc.), prohibiting firearms from their premises.

I agree with all this, although I want to caveat that I'm not a big fan of open carry. Not in that I think it needs to be illegal, just that it's generally not as effective - both in terms of deterrence and definitely usage - as unlimited concealed carry. You don't want to display all of your capabilities.

Hoe can someone be a "second generation immigrant?" If you were born in this country you didn't immigrate and therefore cannot be an immigrant. Seems like a rightwing pseudo-concept.

I'm sure it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-generation_immigrants_in_the_United_States

Second generation Americans in the United States refers to individuals born in the United States who have at least one foreign born parent.[1] Although there is some ambiguity in reference to the definition of second generation Americans, this definition is cited by major research centers such as the United States Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center.[1][2]

It's a lot to keep in your head. Big ass fucking country.

Yeah, the biggest issue for CCW is the different regulations for transport from state to state. Many states recognize each other's licenses, but the rules that go along with exercising it vary. If you plan a trip out of state, and plan to carry, you have to go look up the up to date rules for transport for every state you plan to be in. All in reference to your gun being in your vehicle: Some states require them loaded, some don't. Some require them locked up, some don't. Some require them in the trunk, and some require them visible from outside the vehicle iirc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree with all this, although I want to caveat that I'm not a big fan of open carry. Not in that I think it needs to be illegal, just that it's generally not as effective - both in terms of deterrence and definitely usage - as unlimited concealed carry. You don't want to display all of your capabilities.

To be honest, I wasn't making a big distinction. I think I just repeated "open-carry" because I'd only just read it somewhere. As far as I know (and I admit that I'm mostly illiterate when it comes to gun regulation vocab), open-carry doesn't mean you have to hold your firearm up over your head at all times, or that you have to announce yourself every fifteen minutes or something (correct me if I'm wrong - I also realize it varies from state to state). This being the case, I think it's highly unlikely that a potential shooter coming into, say, a movie theater or nightclub is going to be able to identify firearms even if they're plainly visible on someone's waist.

Except for very, very specific situations, I think that an open-carry environment would deter a potential shooter about as much as a concealed-carry environment would. Even if the shooter is targeting a wide open, well-lit space like a public park or festival or something, and even if he does spot a few people carrying, there's no way he could be confident that he's calculated all possible carriers, especially amidst a crowd of moving bodies.

 

[Dak]

To be honest, I wasn't making a big distinction. I think I just repeated "open-carry" because I'd only just read it somewhere. As far as I know (and I admit that I'm mostly illiterate when it comes to gun regulation vocab), open-carry doesn't mean you have to hold your firearm up over your head at all times, or that you have to announce yourself every fifteen minutes or something (correct me if I'm wrong - I also realize it varies from state to state). This being the case, I think it's highly unlikely that a potential shooter coming into, say, a movie theater or nightclub is going to be able to identify firearms even if they're plainly visible on someone's waist.

Except for very, very specific situations, I think that an open-carry environment would deter a potential shooter about as much as a concealed-carry environment would. Even if the shooter is targeting a wide open, well-lit space like a public park or festival or something, and even if he does spot a few people carrying, there's no way he could be confident that he's calculated all possible carriers, especially amidst a crowd of moving bodies.

Open carry means the gun is visible on your person - typically holstered on a belt, possibly a shoulder/underarm holster (I saw one of these once), without a concealing jacket/coat. Concealed carry is obviously concealed.

Although gun control proponents like to claim that there's no deterrent effect, as the mass shootings continually occur in "gun free zones", there's something there. If you are shooting "for effect" (not to be confused with the similar military term), going where you have the lowest chances of being interrupted before maximum damage can be achieved means seeking out places devoid of other firearm wielders. Notice the shooter didn't attack the Orlando chapter of the "Log Cabin Republicans".

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh certainly, but I'm not suggesting there's no deterrent. I think that in some if not most cases there certainly is. I'm only commenting on the effectiveness of open- vs. concealed-carry, as you suggested earlier. The difference in that case, to me, seems negligible. In other words, I don't really see how concealed-carry acts as a stronger deterrent than open-carry.