I was referring to the comments made by Carson and the instance he found himself in, don't know if you got that or not. He tried to make it sound very cut and dry IMO. The point I was trying to make is it isn't always that simple and having a gun on doesn't mean you will win the day. Everything is situational. The things I get really tired of are people saying "I would have done ...." when they have absolutely no idea how they would react in that situation. It's grandstanding and it's fugging stupid.
It all depends on the situation. If confronted with a gun by someone who hasn't fired a shot and seems more intent on robbing than killing, doing nothing may be the best course of action. If someone is shooting in a crowded room with no other means of escape, charging and possibly dying may be a reasonable course to take. I'll agree with you on the being an internet bad ass though. You rise to your level of training, and if you have none, you might as well sit your ass down.
While I'm definitely pro-gun, I'm all about being responsible pro-gun. Let me help here with number 4. Currently, you can hire a lawyer to work based on 33% contingency and just throw a suit out at someone if you feel you've been wronged. Chances are in a criminal case, the person injured during the commission of a crime isn't going to have the means to reimburse the gun owner for attorney fees when the owner more than likely will win. Cases like this can get into hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which the criminal will have to pay none since their lawyer is getting paid based on what they get. Most of the time it's cheaper to settle, but where is the justice for someone who was defending their life or their families? Either way you're getting robbed. The key part of this policy would be if the police find it to be a justifiable act of self defense. It doesn't eliminate the right of someone to sue if they feel they have been wronged. It does however require them to pay attorney fees or a significant portion of them up front for the defendant if the defendant has been cleared criminally. It would, in my opinion, drastically reduce the number of BS lawsuits clogging up our judicial system. If the criminal's attorney feels so strongly about the case, he should be more than willing to put up the cash if his client doesn't have it. I see this being for self defense only really. Like castle doctrine for your house, or only in self defense. I know there are instances where a criminal may not get civil justice, but there are also times now when people get sued for thousands because a burglar got cut on the glass window while breaking into a house. It's not perfect, but it would be a drastic improvement IMO. 5. It doesn't create a registry because it doesn't list the type of gun, how many, or any information like that. It only shows that you have completed mandatory training and have received a clean bill of mental health until the license expires. 6. Yeah, this law is stupid. It's not what the law actually intends, but it is how it reads. If I hand you my gun to look at it's considered a transfer because it is no longer in my possession. All it's going to take is somebody with a god complex to abuse it. It really is a poorly worded law. I'm all for getting this stuff fixed. But man, we have to get people with common sense talking. Stop the paranoia, stop the rhetoric, stop the bull poo. Guns are a tool used for a single purpose, to kill. If you are going to own one for hunting, self defense, or because it's a family heirloom, you have to be responsible. If you put an annual cost to gun ownership, most people who buy them to put them in a closet will look for other solutions. The people who really want them for honest purposes won't balk too much at the additional cost, as long as it is reasonable.
My solution: 1. Mandatory 3rd party mental evaluation prior to first firearm purchase. Personally, I don't have a ton of confidence in the ability of the US government to employ shrinks without bias, and it would probably cost about 10x more than an independent anyway. Allow for the evaluation to be a tax deductible expense. Require an updated evaluation every 2-3 years, again, tax deductible. 2. All firearms purchased must come with a keyed safety lock from the manufacturer. Easier than making someone purchase one in the store. All guns must be stored in a safe or with the lock on them. While I wouldn't want police to be able to enter a home for search based on this alone, if they found it during the course of a search for another reason, it would be prosecutable. 3. Mandatory 24 hours training per year from certified trainers. Class expenses tax deductible. Classes can't be repeated in back to back years. One class must be about legal ramifications of discharging your firearm updated yearly. 4. Drastically reduce the ability to sue for injuries obtained during the commission of a crime. All legal fees of the firearm owner must be paid in advance of any filed claim for a shooting that has been determined to be justified by law enforcement. Very similar to the castle doctrine currently in effect in several states. 5. Create a new firearms license, much like a drivers license. This will be proof that the mental eval and training has been performed and must be renewed every year. It would not be possible to purchase a gun or ammunition without this license. 6. Third party gun transfers must be within reason. Currently in Wa state, if I am out hunting with someone and I hand them my shotgun to shoot a turkey, I am supposed to file a form for transfer of possession of that firearm since I am no longer in possession of it as the owner. While I highly doubt that a game warden would actually enforce it, laws like this are just stupid and need to be done away with. 7. Firearms insurance. Similar to car insurance, and must be carried if you own a firearm. I'll admit I'm not a fan of the national gun registry. I personally don't like the idea of information about what I own on a centralized system especially with all the hackers out there. It could be a shopping list for criminals if they can obtain access to that information and that doesn't sit well with me, especially as often as the government gets hacking attempts, and some successes, on a daily basis. It is actually possible to restrict the flow of guns and ammunition without infringing on the right to bear arms. There should be some expense to owning a firearm to maintain your responsibility. You should not be allowed to buy a shotgun and put it in a closet to see dust for the next 20 years. If you don't know how to use it, clean it, store it safely, or even hold it properly, you shouldn't own it.
I usually hunt elk and deer, though I haven't had much luck in the past couple of years due to idiot hunters killing for trophies, wolves, and a couple of really bad winters. I eat the meat either as steaks, hamburger, or jerky. I use a couple of different rifles depending on the range I'm going to be hunting. 1-300 yards, I use a 30-06, anything further I use a 300 win mag. I want to make sure that I have enough firepower to for a quick clean kill. Also, I don't have to constantly go out and sight my rifles to switch between ranges. Turkeys I use a shotgun. Handguns varies. I always carry one when I'm out hunting and depending on the terrain determines the type I carry. Sometimes it's a 357, 45, or 9mm. Bear and mountain lion population in the area help determine that as well. I have others I use for CCW depending on what I am wearing. I have had reason to draw my CC, once for a charging german shepherd and once for a person, though fortunately never had to fire. My wife has had to draw hers as well, and police said she was justified in doing so. The guy she drew on had multiple assault, drug charges, DVs, a rape and is currently doing 20 yrs for almost beating his girlfriend to death. I have an AR but I mainly use that for target shooting. It relaxes me, and the rounds are cheaper at $6.50 for 20 vs $28 for rifle ammo. 22 ammo is damn near impossible to find still.
I see no advantage for this law at all. I think more and more people are leaving both parties and going towards independent. Why should you have to declare yourself pub or dem if you don't agree with where they stand. This is a purely political move to prevent voters from leaving the party lines.
I guses it depends on the judge and the cops then. I've seen it on more than one occasion happen where the officer refuses to get involved when one person was allowed to live there. I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't personally seen it.
Honestly man, judging by the sound of her, you may have to evict her to get her to leave. Be prepared. You can't just tell her to get out and make her leave since you have allowed her to live there if she tries to fight it. It could be up to 3 weeks or longer depending on how booked court schedule is. Be ready with a recorder when you break it off. If she makes any physical threats, you can possibly get a protective order and get her out sooner though you likely will still have to evict her. Keep a journal of everything thats happening between you and hide it well. You need all the proof you can get because you are a guy.Run, run like hell from this woman.