Quote:
Originally Posted by KaienZ34
Most laws/law makers protect the criminals more than the citizens. That's just like those azzhats that think we need more gun control and/or no guns at all. What good would that do for the citizens, a criminal by definition DOES NOT follow the law. Most crime committed with guns isn't done by someone who has obtained the gun in a legal way. Isn't it already against the law to kill someone, to rob someone? Well they are still doing it, go ahead and make all the laws you want the criminals will keep on breaking them. All more gun control would do is make it easier for the criminals and totally screw over anyone that obeys the law. Lets look at Chicago, some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. Yet somehow they have some of the highest murder rates and crimes committed with guns per capita.  Most, if not all those crimes committed with guns were not obtained legally. So yeah go ahead and rub some more laws in their face that'll show them.. |
What I quoted has nothing to do with gun control or rubbing "some more laws in their face" - it has to do with laws that have been in the books for a long time on the use of force (not even necessarily the use of a gun). In CA (and in almost every other state in the USA), the law allows you to use as much force (including a weapon of any kind) to defend yourself
as is reasonable given the circumstances you find yourself in. Is there something wrong with that? Or do you really think it's OK to shoot someone simply because they trespassed on your property?
I know it sounds like what I quoted favors the criminals, but it works both ways. Without some "reasonableness" restrictions in the self defense laws
you could end up being shot for trespassing just for taking a short-cut through a field on your daily walk.