i love the bit where the tables turn, revealing the fascinating dynamics of meathead society.

quote from rychan:
Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

I was speaking from the perspective of one of the other golfers on the range, who might have a CCW, as they are the only people who could have legally had a weapon on their person...unless they themselves were walking around with a firearm in plain sight.

Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property.

Exactly, the rules would be even more strict if you were on someone elses property--as the golfers at the ranger were.

"Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Self defense, yes. Drawing your weapon and opening fire, no. If someone picks a fight with you and you shoot them you will most likely be charged with murder...just because someone appears threatening or is even directly threatening you doesn't mean you can shoot them. Legally, you are required to exhaust all available options--including running away if possible, before you can even draw your weapon. Even when become the attack becomes imminent and you have no last option, and you are forced to draw your weapon, you must shout at your attacker to stop--if possible...you cannot just pull out your revolver like its a scene from tombstone and start railing the hammer.

From your own link, http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. DEADLY FORCE may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

A person may use force to defend a third person from attack. If the defender is mistaken, however, and the third party does not need assistance, most jurisdictions hold that the defender may be held liable in civil court for injuries inflicted on the supposed attacker.

A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a GOOD FAITH belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to MANSLAUGHTER. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense."

I think it is very interesting that you decided to use that article as proof against my argument, and had to read through passages that refuted your beliefs in order to cherry pick your quote from it...what do you have to gain from the view you hold?

Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct.

The article you yourself provided pretty much mirrors exactly what I learned in my CCW class (which was taught by a local police sniper with 20 years experience)

well if the hampster is doing different things, then its a different video. Now if this table turned into a man pleasing French whore this go around, then I would say keep it, but as it is the same table doing the same thing, its a dupe.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'can, you, draw, a dragon, big, beefy, arms' to 'can, you, draw, a dragon, big, beefy, arms, tables, turned' - edited by jonny

I was speaking on an instinctual tip. Where is the value in preserving the unborn fetus of a stranger you'll never meet? What natural behavior could be extended to this extreme? ... leads back to the question as to why so many creatures are highly social.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

Roe Vs Wade has lead to the largest drop in crime rates in the US. Those who could not financially support themselves and a child could now abort their children, reducing those born out of wed lock, into poverty, into drug abuse, and eventually those who enter into crime due to inability of the parents to support them fully. Not to mention reducing burden on social services, foster homes and so on. Over the decades since Roe Vs Wade this had lead to the largest crime rate drop in the US, currently the only reason it seems there is more crime is because there is over reporting of what crime does occur due to the 24 hour nature of our news services.

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

My thought with regards to Pro-Lifers is always, if you would adopt, cloth and feed and provide an education for the aborted child then go ahead, I support you.

But don't mandate the abolition of abortion to the State and then refuse the increased costs in taxation in creating foster homes and other social services to support them.

Because thats exactly what would happen.