• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Maryland self-defense Wiki

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

I like it. I think it's well-done and a good, quick reference.

I personally like the objectivity portrayed here. Without emotion, you provided thoughtful and useful information to those who are interested.



Whether I agree with a person or not, I am far more inclined to listen to their point of view when they are being objective.

This may result in a flame or two, but...

Who can argue with the perceived INTENT of gun laws? On the surface, doesn't it make sense to have laws that would seek to reduce gun violence? I think so. I don't want to live in a world where I hear reports of shootings on the news EVERY NIGHT. I don't want to live in a world where I HAVE to be armed to feel safe. Unfortunately I do.

Both sides can take it to an extreme, and that's where the most harm is done.

I can concede to anti-gun folks that the notion of legislation to keep me safe sounds good. I want to be safe. I can concede to the anti-gun folks that some gun laws provide an effective law-enforcement tool to curb gun violence (I cite Virginia's EXILE law, in which felons caught with firearms are sent to prison for 5 years.) Unfortunately, most anti-gun folks I have talked to refuse to return the courtesy and concede that it makes no sense to criminalize the activities that otherwise law-abiding folks feel are necessary to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Instead, most anti-gun folks get on their high horse and explain my gun poses a significant risk. I try to further show my objectivity acknowleding that if I am careless with my weapon, I risk turning an unarmed criminal into an armed criminal. I also acknowledge that if not properly trained with my weapon, I risk hurting innocent people if I am ever forced to defend myself. My efforts usually fall upon deaf ears.

While "we" (the collective America) waste countless hours arguing about such inane topics such as whether hollow points are an effective and responsible self-defense load, or whether hollow points are a premeditation to commit murder, we're getting SLAUGHTERED out there. Don't pro-gun and anti-gun people have common ground? WE ALL WANT TO BE SAFE AND FREE.

Anyway, /end rant. I applaud you on a job well done and encourage others knowledge of Maryland's laws to contribute in the spirit of Wiki, but to also follow the OP's example and do so in an objective manner.

Tim
 

dan-wild

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

nickerj1 wrote:
I just created a Wikipedia article detailing laws surrounding self-defense in Maryland.

Feel free to peruse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_self-defense

IANAL, of course.
Maryland is a beautiful state in many respects. However, just like D.C., Maryland has many laws formulated and passed by complete morons.

When you find yourself under attack, you must flee from the demon attacking you and take a hit to the back of your head, or accept a knife in the back (if you are slow). If the assailant is armed, perhaps you could allow yourself to be shot in the back. Then the politicians could scream for more restrictive gun control laws, demand more tax payer money to beef up the police force and claim the high medical costs of (gun) crime.

Common sense dictates that if one is faced with deadly force, or truly believes that grave bodily harm is imminent, one needs to use deadly force to protect oneself and not become a a wounded or deceased victim in need of medical care or burial.

Create victims, fleece the taxpayers, get re-elected, appoint your cronies, etc. Maryland My Maryland.
 
Top