Christians & gun control

Well there is a difference between coffee is hot and coffee is scalding...
If I buy a hot drink (be it tea, coffee or anything else) in an open container, I expect that I won´t get seriously injured when spilling something over my skin accidentally. That´s common sense.
Situation: You get cornered by some street kids wanting your money. They have no wepaons but numbers.
A) you draw a gun an begin shooting and harming a few of them.
B) you draw a gun and tell them to back off.

In case of A you would probably use excessive force, which doesn´t fall under emergency defense and get convicted. In which case a private lawsuit will have big chances of winning.

In case B there wouldn´t be a chance for a lawsuit against you for deadly threat or some such.

Can anyone disprove the point, that only lawsuits win against the defender, when the defender used excessive force?

lacmeh,

that is the most arcane and stupid idea I ever heard in so long... I've been burned many times with coffee - out of MY own pot not long ago - in fact I spilled about 8 ounches or so and it burned - MY hand was red for a long time.. I guess I should sue Mr. Coffee for making the coffee too hot.... it was thier fault for making it so hot...

tell you what - go ahead and think what you want.. I agree with waterwizard - throwing COMMON sense out the window... you want to think shooting a person in the leg when they threaten you with a weapon is overdoing it - theres no sense in argueing - think it..... I'll stand by My opinions and you can stand by yours.............

just to prove how frivolous suits are in todays society - a man bought a Winnebago - was driving down the road - put the thing on cruise control - got up to make himself a cup of coffee and the thing wrecked - He sued Winnebago ( NO warnings ) and WON - he got a good chunk of money aas well as a NEW WINNEBAGO......... of course Winnebago learned a valuable lesson - they now put a warning on their campers warning people to not get up from the drivers seat - it may cause an accident... yes sir - can't call that frivilous

Today at 12:10 PM Lacmeh said this in Post #81 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650882#post650882)


Can anyone disprove the point, that only lawsuits win against the defender, when the defender used excessive force?

Click to expand...

exactly what are you asking??

Today at 11:10 AM Lacmeh said this in Post #81

Well there is a difference between coffee is hot and coffee is scalding... 

Click to expand...

Puhleeze........

Well, I would like to know, if there are lawsuits of offenders against defenders, which were won by the offender AND the defender wasn´t using excessive force.

Waterwizard, if the coffee has 50 degree Celsius it´s still hot, but you don´t really injure yourself when you spill it. If the coffee has 96 degree Celsius it is hot, too but you injure yourself if you spill it. That´s the difference.

In case B there wouldn´t be a chance for a lawsuit against you for deadly threat or some such.

Click to expand...

yes you would!  Mental anguish.  you never pull/display a weapon, especially in public unless you plan on using it.

People have the right to defend themselves.

John 18:10-11
Then Simon <B>Peter</B>, who had a <B>sword</B>, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)&nbsp;Jesus commanded <B>Peter</B>, "Put your <B>sword</B> away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"


Notice Jesus did not tell Peter he should not have had the sword but to put it away.&nbsp; If having a weapon was wrong why didn't Jesus tell Peter that it was wrong instead of just saying to put it away?

I don´t deny, that there are many frivolous lawsuits, but a company must take measures to minimize the possibility of injures by accident. And giving out watery solution at water boiling point at 1 atm pressure in an open container when lot of peopel are milling around, that´s not minimizing accidents.

Youthpastor, that´s absolute BS. If I dispaly the gun, because some threaten me, that´s not excessive force. That´s self defense. Starting to shoot at said unarmed crowd without further provocation is excessive force.

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993

I'm not sure thats what he meant exactly

Well for clarification, I never stated, that owning/drawing a gun is wrong....

I just pointed out,t hat there are laws in place, that define, what is approbiate emergency defense. If people overstep these bounds, they are viable for lawsuiting. If those bounds don´t get overstepped then a lawsuit hasn´t a chance.

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)
Hot means the perpertrator is armed

Accidental Deaths in the U.S. for 1998
41,200 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents,
16,600 in falls at home and on the job,
4,100 from water in drowning,
9,400 from poisoning, in the same year,
3,700 due to fire or burns,
3,200 due to choking, and
900 from guns
Note that the top category of vehicle accidents is 45 times greater than the bottom category of guns. Should we outlaw cars, and ladders?

Today at 12:32 PM Lacmeh said this in Post #92

Well for clarification, I never stated, that owning/drawing a gun is wrong....

I just pointed out, that there are laws in place, that define, what is appropriate emergency defense. If people overstep these bounds, they are viable for lawsuiting. If those bounds don´t get overstepped then a lawsuit hasn´t a chance.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good assuming that the bounds set were reasonable, but judging from whats 'flying' in the courts, I'd say the assumption is false.

Shooting into a crowd IS WRONG - chances are you are not going to get mugged when you around a crowd.

lacmeh.......

soon as I can find the file about some frivilous law suits - YES - I can prove there are cases where some one trying to defend themseleves was sued and lost and it was not over done or excessive force.......


as far as hot water - get real - who wants to BUY coffee and have it luke warm - it's supposed to be hot..... if a person is whiney about it being hot - DON'T buy it.......

Today at 11:28 AM Lacmeh said this in Post #88

I don´t deny, that there are many frivolous lawsuits, but a company must take measures to minimize the possibility of injures by accident. And giving out watery solution at water boiling point at 1 atm pressure in an open container when lot of peopel are milling around, that´s not minimizing accidents.

Click to expand...

As I recall,&nbsp;don't ALL hot liquids that are served to go have a lid on them?&nbsp; Who opened the lid?&nbsp; Was it the server?&nbsp; NO!!&nbsp; It was the woman!!

This has become petty, I am withdrawing myself from the coffee subject.




&nbsp;

If I remember correctly the woman put the HOT coffee between her legs as she was puling away from the window -

Just thought I'd throw this in....

Couple sues McDonald's over hot pickle

<I>Monday, October 9, 2000</I> [font=Arial,Helvetica]SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE [/font]<SSUM>KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- A Knoxville couple has filed a $125,000 lawsuit against a local McDonald's restaurant, claiming the woman was burned on the chin by a hot pickle. The two-page document contends that Veronica Martin was injured by an allegedly dangerous and defective product -- in this case, a small McDonald's hamburger -- causing her to suffer both physical and mental injuries. Those injuries include a second-degree burn on Martin's chin that left a permanent scar. The suit filed by Veronica and Darrin Martin claims "the hamburger sold by the (McDonald's) was in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous to the general consumer and in particular to (Veronica Martin.)" According to the suit, the events leading up to Veronica Martin's injury began on Oct. 6, 1999, when she and her husband bought several small hamburgers at the restaurant. Veronica Martin seeks $110,000 in damages. Darren Martin, who the lawsuit states "has been deprived of the services and consortium of his wife," seeks $15,000.