The USA is slightly behind a number of other western countries in terms of per capita drug use. These other countries (UK, Australia, Italy, New Zealand, for example) don't have murder cultures.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA is slightly behind a number of other western countries in terms of per capita drug use. These other countries (UK, Australia, Italy, New Zealand, for example) don't have murder cultures.
And incidentally there are well-armed gangs and mafia types controlling the (illegal) drug trade that shoot each other up routinely and make up a disproportionately high number of murders. Those gangs do arm themselves illegally too (the meltdown of the Eastern Bloc and Balkan wars had a massive influx of illegal automatic weapons, grenades and whatnot that's still felt to this day)
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…
Exactly; you think it's a punishment to take guns off the majority because the risks are high. Most of the rest of the world said "You know what? That's fair, here's my gun." As I said, we've still got the ability to keep a gun, and could have done if we wanted, but decided that it just wasn't worth it. All I lose is a bit of cash and some hobby leeway, in exchange for it being impossible for anyone to be harmed by my guns. I can still get another one if I want to, either by getting a license or borrowing one at a range. I don't lose any self defense ability because people don't carry guns here, and I haven't lost any rights.
Thats where the US/World dividecomes in. You can't comprehend the loss of the 2nd the loss of the liberty to own and carry a gun, as you feel its integral to the ability to defend yourself, and we can'tcomprehend why you'd even want to carry a gun in self defense, becausse it's a sure fire way to get yourself shot or jailed. Especiaally since there doesn't seem to be any requirements on ownership like competence, secure storage or mental wellness, You don't let convicted felons buy guns, which is something I guess.
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
Any law which makes some tangible item illegal automatically means someone will lose out from either forfeiture or value. Banning alcohol presumably put a lot of distilleries/breweries under, same with drugs, lead paint, CFCs, and so on. Guns are no different.
But then, with guns you can always grandfather them out - let everyone keep what they currently have and make it significantly harder to get new ones, within a couple of generations gun ownership goes from being the norm to being the exception, no-one loses out on property or existing liberties.
I am not entirely sure of that statement since Japan has a higher suicide rate than the U.S., placing them at number 17 in the world compared to the the U.S. at number 50.
Japan has a very honour based culture that still makes suicide a far more likely occurance than it should be, so the rate of determined suiciders is much higher and gun access is irrelevant, since it's not opportunistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership. A fence around a pool will keep kids from falling into it and drowning. There is no equivalent way to fence in all of the dozens or hundreds of objects in a home that have the potential for lethal accidents. Failure to be responsible with any of those objects can result in criminal charges. Different safeguards for different dangers.
So you're ok with a requirement to keep a fence round a pool, but not one that requires you to have secure storage before buying a gun? The child endangerment laws have a critical flaw in that they only really seem to come into play *after* the child is dead.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
I think that the US has a problem with violent murders largely because of the pervasive drug culture. The US consumes far more drugs than most other countries and that helps creates a stage for violence, both from criminal gang activities surrounding the drug trade and crimes committed while users are under the influence of those drugs. A very significant portion of violent crimes occur when somebody is high or drunk. Reduce the impact of the drug culture and it'd go a long way to reducing the murder rate in the US.
So the solution is to legalize drugs and kill off the gang control?
Herzlos wrote: [we can'tcomprehend why you'd even want to carry a gun in self defense, becausse it's a sure fire way to get yourself shot or jailed. Especiaally since there doesn't seem to be any requirements on ownership like competence, secure storage or mental wellness, You don't let convicted felons buy guns, which is something I guess.
There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one. Those of us with concealed carry permits are statistically one of the most law abiding, and safest people to be around. Statisically, a concealed carry permit holder is half as likely to commit a felony than a police officer. I believe we are also less likely than an Amish.
Herzlos wrote: [we can'tcomprehend why you'd even want to carry a gun in self defense, becausse it's a sure fire way to get yourself shot or jailed. Especiaally since there doesn't seem to be any requirements on ownership like competence, secure storage or mental wellness, You don't let convicted felons buy guns, which is something I guess.
There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one. Those of us with concealed carry permits are statistically one of the most law abiding, and safest people to be around. Statisically, a concealed carry permit holder is half as likely to commit a felony than a police officer. I believe we are also less likely than an Amish.
Only nuns beat us, if you don't count the occasional political protest arrest.
cuda1179 wrote: There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one.
Sounds to me like guns are a good reason for someone to not seek help with metal illness, because it'll prevent them from getting a gun if there's a background check.
cuda1179 wrote: There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one.
Sounds to me like guns are a good reason for someone to not seek help with metal illness, because it'll prevent them from getting a gun if there's a background check.
There is that, too.
But didn't the Trump administration just start the motions to remove the restriction on buying guns if you're mentally ill?
I dare say concealed carry holders are on paper as the most law abiding, but what about everyone else?
cuda1179 wrote: There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one.
Sounds to me like guns are a good reason for someone to not seek help with metal illness, because it'll prevent them from getting a gun if there's a background check.
There is that, too.
But didn't the Trump administration just start the motions to remove the restriction on buying guns if you're mentally ill?
It was just the part about using social security disability status as a reason deny a sale on a background check. If a court or conviction say you're not competent, that still stands and is not in contention.
cuda1179 wrote: There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one.
Sounds to me like guns are a good reason for someone to not seek help with metal illness, because it'll prevent them from getting a gun if there's a background check.
But didn't the Trump administration just start the motions to remove the restriction on buying guns if you're mentally ill?
That's a product of a misleading, hyperbolic headlines.... #FakeNews at it's finest.
The rule that the Obama administration pushed, would have allowed bureaucrats within one of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right ... on the highly questionable grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a “mental defective.”
I'm just going to throw my opinion out here. I'm personally fine with CC. I think it's a bit silly, but that's not nearly enough reason to make it illegal. I do, however, believe that to get a CC permit, you should have to show basic competency, ect. Considering the complete lack of basic gun safety that is shown a lot of the time, I'd say it's fair that you have to show you know it before you accidentally shoot someone (or leave a gun unattended where a child shoots someone or themselves) .
I do have an issue with Joe-Schmo thinking that he can act like some old movie cowboy and acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Deadly force is a last resort to only be used against deadly force.
cuda1179 wrote: There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one.
Sounds to me like guns are a good reason for someone to not seek help with metal illness, because it'll prevent them from getting a gun if there's a background check.
There is that, too.
But didn't the Trump administration just start the motions to remove the restriction on buying guns if you're mentally ill?
I dare say concealed carry holders are on paper as the most law abiding, but what about everyone else?
We're all innocent until proven guilty so we all get the benefit of the doubt. Everyone gets to exercise their rights until they prove to society that they can't be trusted to do so responsibly.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm just going to throw my opinion out here. I'm personally fine with CC. I think it's a bit silly, but that's not nearly enough reason to make it illegal. I do, however, believe that to get a CC permit, you should have to show basic competency, ect. Considering the complete lack of basic gun safety that is shown a lot of the time, I'd say it's fair that you have to show you know it before you accidentally shoot someone (or leave a gun unattended where a child shoots someone or themselves) .
I do have an issue with Joe-Schmo thinking that he can act like some old movie cowboy and acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Deadly force is a last resort to only be used against deadly force.
Most states have substantial requirements for CHL now.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, most states require that you may not use lethal defense except to protect against deadly force, grievous harm, and usually major felonies (like rape, armed robbery etc.)
Now in Texas we have to bring in certified copies where we have successfully hunted down a chupacabra. The alternative of hunting down a Yankee was struck out of the law way back in 2014.
Herzlos wrote: [we can'tcomprehend why you'd even want to carry a gun in self defense, becausse it's a sure fire way to get yourself shot or jailed. Especiaally since there doesn't seem to be any requirements on ownership like competence, secure storage or mental wellness, You don't let convicted felons buy guns, which is something I guess.
There are laws about mental wellness. You can't buy a gun if you are mentally ill, and you sure as heck can't carry one. Those of us with concealed carry permits are statistically one of the most law abiding, and safest people to be around. Statisically, a concealed carry permit holder is half as likely to commit a felony than a police officer. I believe we are also less likely than an Amish.
Only nuns beat us, if you don't count the occasional political protest arrest.
Again, the figure of concealed carry exists in most developed countries. With my background I could perfectly apply for one, I just don't want much less need to.
All developed countries are somewhere between a Somalia-style free-for-all and a total ban.
Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?
The fun fact is that once you get out of certain areas of the US (Chicago, D.C., Detroit, etc.) the murder rate is about the same as western Europe. My little area (about the size of a European country) is actually lower, despite having more guns per capital than Chicago.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm just going to throw my opinion out here. I'm personally fine with CC. I think it's a bit silly, but that's not nearly enough reason to make it illegal. I do, however, believe that to get a CC permit, you should have to show basic competency, ect. Considering the complete lack of basic gun safety that is shown a lot of the time, I'd say it's fair that you have to show you know it before you accidentally shoot someone (or leave a gun unattended where a child shoots someone or themselves) .
I do have an issue with Joe-Schmo thinking that he can act like some old movie cowboy and acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Deadly force is a last resort to only be used against deadly force.
Most states have substantial requirements for CHL now.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, most states require that you may not use lethal defense except to protect against deadly force, grievous harm, and usually major felonies (like rape, armed robbery etc.)
Now in Texas we have to bring in certified copies where we have successfully hunted down a chupacabra. The alternative of hunting down a Yankee was struck out of the law way back in 2014.
Yup, it's why I'm pretty OK with the current system. Could certainly use improvement (nothing is perfect), but it's pretty good.
I think one of the problems that sometimes gets forgotten is the majority of Americans don't own a gun (or even want to own a gun). But because of the 2nd amendment, these people are affected by the large amount of guns in America.
Cops are more frightened and more likely to use deadly force because anyone they face could have a gun. People (mostly in cities) have to worry about being assaulted or killed by people with guns. This is definitely influenced by how easily accessible guns are. There has to be a way to decrease how prevalent it is for a criminal to get weapons.
It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
Edit: Rural and Suburban people's easy access to guns makes things more difficult for people in urban areas. It can be frustrating.
cuda1179 wrote: Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?
No, and I'm not sure why you keep thinking that we do. No one that I can see have promoted the idea that a large portion of Americans want to shoot people for trivial reasons. No one has promoted that a large portion of Americans are irresponsible with their guns.
People are promoting the idea that having a large number of guns in the community makes people in the community as a whole more prone to suffering from a bad case of being shot dead.
The fun fact is that once you get out of certain areas of the US (Chicago, D.C., Detroit, etc.) the murder rate is about the same as western Europe. My little area (about the size of a European country) is actually lower, despite having more guns per capital than Chicago.
Yeah, so basically crime is more likely to exist where you have lots of people crammed in close in a city. If the rest of the western world manages a murder rate as low as rural areas in spite of also having large cities, then it still means they have lower murder rates. If I recall correctly Australia has a similar if not higher density of the population in cities as the US.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".
cuda1179 wrote: Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?
Nah we only really hear about toddlers and mass shootings, so the impression we get is that an awful lot of you aren't competent to be owning guns, and the system encourages that abuse.
cuda1179 wrote: Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?
Nah we only really hear about toddlers and mass shootings, so the impression we get is that an awful lot of you aren't competent to be owning guns, and the system encourages that abuse.
Then that's a terribly inaccurate impression, likely formed from only hearing sensationalist headlines designed to make money rather than reporting the likes of "tens of millions of gun owners used their firearms without incident today", which does not sell as well as bad news.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".
The gun death rate is statistically insignificant?
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".
The gun death rate is statistically insignificant?
CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…
Exactly; you think it's a punishment to take guns off the majority because the risks are high. Most of the rest of the world said "You know what? That's fair, here's my gun." As I said, we've still got the ability to keep a gun, and could have done if we wanted, but decided that it just wasn't worth it. All I lose is a bit of cash and some hobby leeway, in exchange for it being impossible for anyone to be harmed by my guns. I can still get another one if I want to, either by getting a license or borrowing one at a range. I don't lose any self defense ability because people don't carry guns here, and I haven't lost any rights.
Thats where the US/World dividecomes in. You can't comprehend the loss of the 2nd the loss of the liberty to own and carry a gun, as you feel its integral to the ability to defend yourself, and we can't comprehend why you'd even want to carry a gun in self defense, because it's a sure fire way to get yourself shot or jailed. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any requirements on ownership like competence, secure storage or mental wellness, You don't let convicted felons buy guns, which is something I guess.
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
Any law which makes some tangible item illegal automatically means someone will lose out from either forfeiture or value. Banning alcohol presumably put a lot of distilleries/breweries under, same with drugs, lead paint, CFCs, and so on. Guns are no different.
But then, with guns you can always grandfather them out - let everyone keep what they currently have and make it significantly harder to get new ones, within a couple of generations gun ownership goes from being the norm to being the exception, no-one loses out on property or existing liberties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership. A fence around a pool will keep kids from falling into it and drowning. There is no equivalent way to fence in all of the dozens or hundreds of objects in a home that have the potential for lethal accidents. Failure to be responsible with any of those objects can result in criminal charges. Different safeguards for different dangers.
So you're ok with a requirement to keep a fence round a pool, but not one that requires you to have secure storage before buying a gun? The child endangerment laws have a critical flaw in that they only really seem to come into play *after* the child is dead.
Whatever term you want to use to describe it, it's still the removal of a right from a person that is innocent of any wrongdoing but is now no longer allowed to exercise that right based solely on the actions of a completely different person and the hypothetical possibility of future actions that may be taken by the individual. That kind of logic is never going to make sense to me.
The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
The US already currently has more restrictions on gun ownership than in any other time in our national history. Prior to 1998 we didn't even have a national system for criminal background checks for purchasers, just forms for purchasers to fill out that required truthful (but unverified) answers. Throughout US history we've allowed citizens to own the equivalent of military small arms with minimal restrictions. There's no significant differences between the rifles that have been issued to our military over the years and the ones available for civilian purchase, from muskets to bolt action and lever action rifles to semi auto rifles, from flintlock pistols to revolvers to semi auto pistols too. We let civilians own semi auto rifles when we were issuing M1 Garands which is no different in principle than letting civilians own AR15s when we're issuing semi auto M4s. American citizens were just as responsible, trustworthy and entitled to their rights to keep and bear arms back then as now. There's no compelling interest to change that.
We may not agree on this topic but I do appreciate the discussion and your efforts in contributing to it so cheers for that.
Ending the private ownership of guns would require a lot of legislative work and new judicial precedents set at each level of government. Repealing the 2A doesn't get rid of all the federal laws regarding gun ownership and it wouldn't make gun ownership illegal. New Federal laws would have to be passed after the 2A was repealed and those laws would have to be upheld by Federal courts. However, those new Federal laws wouldn't strip away any of the existing state laws and state constitutional protections. Each state would have to independently repeal any clauses in their state constitutions that codify rights for residents to own firearms and then each state would have to pass new legislation that prohibited firearm ownership. Of course none of that would address the 300+ million firearms already in private hands (nationally over 2 million guns are purchased each month) because current owners would have ex post facto protection from new anti gun laws so you'd have enough guns to arm every member of the populace remaining in civilian hands until such time as people voluntarily disposed of them or they wore out. The best case scenario for removing guns from civilian ownership would take years to implement and leave hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands for the foreseeable future and that that best case scenario gets harder to implement as more time passes.
Pools that are exterior structures should be governed by building codes and municipal/state ordinances and be required to have fences just like stairs can be required to have handrails. There are dozens to hundreds of dangerous items in a home that can be involved in lethal or harmful accidents with children yet we don't have safe storage laws for them all. Accidental poisonings cause far more deaths than accidental discharges of firearms but there's no law requiring how I store household cleaning products or other harmful substances in my home that could harm my children and law enforcement doesn't violate my 4th amendment rights by showing up to do surprise inspections to make sure they're secure. There's no law that sets storage standards for my steak knives or axes or chainsaws or power tools and they could all kill my kids too. There's no law that requires my house to be child proofed before I bring a newborn home from the hospital. I don't see a compelling reason to make guns a special case for storage laws and I don't see the point in passing unenforceable laws. LEOs don't have the right or the time to go around inspecting homes to see if the 300+ million privately owned firearms are safely stored so the only time the law would come into play would be after the fact of an accident or as an additional charge after police arrive for a different reason.
All of our laws are reactive laws, there are no pre-emptive laws where you can be charged with a crime before you do something wrong so child endangerment and child neglect laws are no different from all our other laws in that regard. Those laws cover parents/guardians/adults being negligent with any of the myriad dangerous objects and substances in a home which cause more accidental deaths than guns as well as guns so I don't see a need for additional laws just for guns.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".
The gun death rate is statistically insignificant?
CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.
Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.
AdeptSister wrote: I think one of the problems that sometimes gets forgotten is the majority of Americans don't own a gun (or even want to own a gun). But because of the 2nd amendment, these people are affected by the large amount of guns in America.
Cops are more frightened and more likely to use deadly force because anyone they face could have a gun. People (mostly in cities) have to worry about being assaulted or killed by people with guns. This is definitely influenced by how easily accessible guns are. There has to be a way to decrease how prevalent it is for a criminal to get weapons.
It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
Edit: Rural and Suburban people's easy access to guns makes things more difficult for people in urban areas. It can be frustrating.
The desire of urban people to obtain guns and murder people with them has nothing to do with rural and suburban people. Urban areas need to do a better job of dealing with all of the socio economic issues that result in gang infested high crime poverty stricken neighborhoods and ghettos instead of scapegoating people who live in other areas for the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: I can only find the 2014 CDC numbers: Homicide are 5 with Gun Homicides are 3.4.
So is the argument is that Homicides are statistically irrelevant?
Yes. In a nation of approximately 320,000,000 people having 10,000 homicides per year via firearm isn't the sign of a major problem with gun violence. Violent crime has been decreasing for decades and gun sales have been steadily increasing.
AdeptSister wrote: It feels like the people who do not have to deal with gun violence have decided "Well, my ability to have fun with firearms is more important than all the death and destruction they cause."
More like "my ability to exercise my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason I see fit is more important than disarmament due to a statistically insignificant number of people misusing them".
The gun death rate is statistically insignificant?
CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.
Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.
Acceptable risk imho.
AdeptSister wrote:I can only find the 2014 CDC numbers: Homicide are 5 with Gun Homicides are 3.4.
So is the argument is that Homicides are statistically irrelevant?
Deaths involving a firearm are statistically insignificant, especially when a person is using it as the basis of an argument to strip the Constitutional rights of the entire population of the US.
Again, the figure of concealed carry exists in most developed countries. With my background I could perfectly apply for one, I just don't want much less need to.
Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.
That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.
Cities like Chicago have had persistent issues for years with gangs and the local authorities have yet to come up with viable solutions to make a dent in the problem. Once the demand for guns and violence is created a means to supply it will develop. The gangs manage to get their hands on illegal drugs that are far more restricted than guns because the demand for drugs, whether for sale or use, is there so they find a way to get them and the ensuing black market leads to violence. Heroin is illegal everywhere and can't be legal purchased but you can find it in every major city. That's a problem that can't be blamed on more permissive heroin laws in rural and suburban areas. Just like narcotics didn't create a market themselves, neither do guns, but unlike narcotics there are legal protections that allow the purchase and ownership of guns. So while you can make narcotics illegal everywhere you can't make guns illegal everywhere but even if you could those laws wouldn't mitigate the gang violence any more than the drug laws.
Here are some articles that highlight the problems in Chicago and the failed policies that contribute to them:
cuda1179 wrote: Seriously, does the rest of the world think half of Americans have a revolver on their hip waiting to shoot someone for littering?
The fun fact is that once you get out of certain areas of the US (Chicago, D.C., Detroit, etc.) the murder rate is about the same as western Europe. My little area (about the size of a European country) is actually lower, despite having more guns per capital than Chicago.
Yes, rural US murder rate is only slightly higher than that of Western Europe taken as a whole.
It just turns out that most murders in Europe also happen in poor urban neighborhoods with drugs and other illegal activities usually playing some part. That's not apples to apples.
Vaktathi wrote: Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.
That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.
This. Deal with poverty and the crime rate drops significantly.
FWIW I think it was a mistake to let guns become so proliferated as they are in the US today, but also that the gun genie is out of the bottle already. There's simply no practical way to enforce a ban, even if people wanted it, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
Anarcho-capitalist? Personally I think that the person who is unwilling to give up any amount of liberty for security better be very strong (or have strong protectors) because a society who make that choice is a society where the strong will be free to prey upon the weak.
I know saying otherwise is a popular opinion but really I think here it's a question that require moderation and finding the right place where to put the cursor between liberty and security is important.
Nostromodamus wrote: CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.
Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.
Acceptable risk imho.
How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?
How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?
Yes. DHS "security" can definitely be toned down, and eliminate the arbitrary "no fly" lists too. Also get rid of the "Patriot Act" while we're at it.
How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?
Personally speaking, given the hilariously ineffective nature of many of these things and creepily 1984 nature of others, there is a whole lot of laws, agencies, and programs that I would love to see go bye-bye.
Vaktathi wrote: Aye, the US has a violence issue in general, and even if we took all the guns away, the US would still have dramatically more issues with violent crime than other developed nations. This is largely centered around poorly serviced areas of economic disparity. The underlying socioeconomic issues in these areas need to be resolved, everything else is just a symptom, and outside these areas (not all of which are urban mind you) issues with violent crime arent all that much different on average than other developed nations.
That said, as noted, violent crime is pretty much at an all time low and decreasing every year, while the number of firearms in circulation and available to the population is at an all time high. While I wont attempt to endorse the idea that some do there that more guns decrease crime, it does seem to disprove the idea that more guns makes society less safe too.
This. Deal with poverty and the crime rate drops significantly.
FWIW I think it was a mistake to let guns become so proliferated as they are in the US today, but also that the gun genie is out of the bottle already. There's simply no practical way to enforce a ban, even if people wanted it, which doesn't seem to be the case.
aye, trying to collect several hundred million unregistered firearms across a continent sized nation would take multiple lifetime's worth of work
How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?
Yes. DHS "security" can definitely be toned down, and eliminate the arbitrary "no fly" lists too. Also get rid of the "Patriot Act" while we're at it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on all those points.
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
Anarcho-capitalist? Personally I think that the person who is unwilling to give up any amount of liberty for security better be very strong (or have strong protectors) because a society who make that choice is a society where the strong will be free to prey upon the weak.
I know saying otherwise is a popular opinion but really I think here it's a question that require moderation and finding the right place where to put the cursor between liberty and security is important.
Anarcho capitalism is a few steps further than I would personally want things to go. I want a state that is capable of doing the few things that benefit all that are beyond the ability of individuals to do and act a referee for the markets not a participant. A strictly limited government not the absence of one.
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.
I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.
Nostromodamus wrote: CDC places firearm deaths in 2016 per 100,000 population as 10.6, which is 0.0106%, so yes.
Well, that's per year, if you live to 100 you would have had roughly 1% chance of being killed by a firearm.
Acceptable risk imho.
How does the risk of dying from a terror attack compare? Would you support dropping anti-terrorist laws and actions (like the whole annoying airports checks) because they are statistically irrelevant?
I'm not even American and I'd be happy to see a lot of those anti-terrorist laws be put to death
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.
I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Pretty basic concepts.
Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable. Having that right massively restricted is a loss of freedom. Basic freedom of choice, to own or not own the means of defense is taken away from you. When you are forced to rely on the gov't for your protection, you have lost some freedom.
For many (even in the US) that is perceived as not a big deal.
What I've seen advocated in this topic and in other places is further restricting (or even taking away) a right because some others have used a gun to do bad things. Again, for some, that is a 'good thing'. For others, having that right forcibly taken away is a loss of freedom they do not accept.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Pretty basic concepts.
Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable. Having that right massively restricted is a loss of freedom. Basic freedom of choice, to own or not own the means of defense is taken away from you. When you are forced to rely on the gov't for your protection, you have lost some freedom.
For many (even in the US) that is perceived as not a big deal.
What I've seen advocated in this topic and in other places is further restricting (or even taking away) a right because some others have used a gun to do bad things. Again, for some, that is a 'good thing'. For others, having that right forcibly taken away is a loss of freedom they do not accept.
Also... keep in mind that when the framers added the 2nd amendment, in the back of their mind they were trying to avoid scenarios where the British empire passed the Coercive Acts
in 1774 in response to the 1773 Boston Tea Party, which led up to guns and black powder confiscations by the Red Coats.
Prestor Jon wrote: The most important aspect of my rights to keep and bear arms isn't the benefit it gives me in regard to my right to defend myself, the most important aspect to me is that it is integral to my ability to be free. I believe in ensuring the maximum amount of individual liberty that can exist in society.
This is understandable and I hope you would similarly understand that many people and countries in seeking the same goals as you, freedom and maximum amount of liberty, have reached the opposite conclusion.
I do. I'm not passing judgment on other cultures, just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make their culture invalid or wrong. I am fond of the society and culture that we have here in the US and I would defend it as being a worthwhile structure based on reasonable and positive core values. While I would personally be pleased to see more countries adopt American ways I am not in favor of nations exporting forced cultural changes on other nations. Culture should be left to change organically. I want everyone to be as happy with the society in their country as I am with mine or even happier.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Throughout US history the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been protected by Federal and state laws. That's a freedom we've always valued and been entitled to exercise. I don't see any compelling reason to give up that freedom and see my children and grandchild not have the same rights as me, and previous generations. While in some areas and respects citizens are more free now then previously in other respects people are less free. I would like to see the additional restrictions on personal liberty repealed and don't want to impose any more. Losing the right to keep and bear arms would mean that future generations would have tangibly less rights and freedom than previous generations and I strongly believe that future generations deserve to be as free as any previous generation of Americans.
One of the primary responsibilities of the government is to protect minority rights and the most important minority is the individual. Firearm ownership is an integral part of individual liberty and self reliance because it grants individuals the ability to protect their exercise of other rights and enables them to be more self reliant.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Pretty basic concepts.
Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.
Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.
If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Pretty basic concepts.
Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.
Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.
If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.
A gun as the tool has ZERO to do with what (if anything) an attacker has. I'll choose a gun in a fist or knife fight any day. And the firearm IS the most effective tool for the vast majority of cases. It allows my 5'3" wife a chance to stand up to a 6'4" guy (even if that guy is unarmed). A gun works against guys with baseball bats or screwdrivers. A gun works against guys with brass knuckles.
If my aggressor has a field gun, armored vehicle, or drone a gun is still infinitely better than being unarmed. And that field gun needs ammo, the armored vehicle needs ammo, gas, parts, the drone operator and the analyst looking at the 'take' are also vulnerable to a rifle. You can what if all you want. A gun armed person in the vast majority of cases is better able to defend against a threat than a person without the gun. Hence the reason police forces and militaries have them.
And again, the 'bad guys' take many forms, which is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Your right to defend yourself and others (against tyranny as well as criminals) is diminished when the most effective tool is unavailable.
Only if you assume that (a) the most effective tool is a firearm and (b) you're defending yourself from someone who does have one. I get that point of view - bad people have guns so good people should also have guns.
If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. If your aggressor has field gun, armoured vehicle or a drone, you still can't defend yourself with a gun.
It is worth bearing in mind that the differences between the two sides of the Atlantic make it difficult to argue that ideals work regardless of where you live.
Taking the differences between US and UK for example, the proliferation of guns in the US means that should they try counter criminal measures used in the UK they would find them much less effective and possibly impotent. Meanwhile the paucity of weapons in the UK means that US measures would cause pandemonium on the UK streets.
This is why the "use a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" simply gets no traction over here. In Europe the idea is laughable. In the US you can see how it makes sense.
It would be an interesting experiment to see the effect upon crime if all the guns in the US disappeared over night, or if everyone in Europe suddenly got access to firearms similar to the US, but that's an impossible scenario.
This was the sort of direction I was going down when I asked Prestor Jon the previous question and he gave an excellent reply.
Herzlos wrote: If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.
Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.
In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.
It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.
I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.
I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Well, see, it goes back to when we were colonies and someone tried to take our guns away so as to keep us under their control...
Frazzled wrote: Once I was attacked by this ancient ferocious monster, then I realized it was just TBone trying to bite me with his three teeth.
For some reason I have an image in my head of a near toothless weiner dog festooned with firepower Dino Riders style terrorizing neghborhoods...
This image is completely accurate. He strode the neighborhood like a colossus, reigning terror and destruction upon all who stood between him and his prey*
*and by prey I mean bugs, He ate bugs like popcorn. And bythose who stood between him I mean hordes of small children, large children, cute ladies, and old people who would always swarm him and smother him with pets and hugs.
This seems to be a key point and for me, it's one I struggle to understand. Can you please explain the gun = freedom thing in a bit more detail?
As a Brit I've never felt my sense of freedom lacking due to not owning a gun. Certainly not compared to the impact on my freedom from having a wife, kids and mortgage...
Well, see, it goes back to when we were colonies and someone tried to take our guns away so as to keep us under their control...
Touche!
What can I say? Throw our tea in the ocean and gak gets real...
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
Herzlos wrote: If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.
Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.
In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.
It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.
I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.
Are you opposed to a licensing system that determines if you should be allowed to have a gun because you have the need for a gun.
That's how it works in the UK. Farmer? Deer culler? Target shooting club member? Need a gun? Not mentally ill, etc.? Here's your gun licence subject to rules about storage and so on.
Rights issue aside, we're also at the point where, since we've got basically 1 firearm per person, and essentially none of them registered, licensing would be unrealistically difficult, particularly post-facto licensing.
Needs based testing and licensing also often turns in defacto bans, see NYC handgun purchasing and California carry permits. Registries get so much flak because they are seen as leading to the same thing, such as with the 1986 Hughes Amendment and some of the rather ridiculous shennanigans CA has pulled with their AW registries/bans.
Kilkrazy wrote: May I assume, therefore, that you are against guns but you support their uninterrupted use because the law says so?
No sir, that would be an incorrect assumption. I have been operating firearms my entire life since. Literally as far back as I can remember shooting my first BB gun very young. I was simply stating the majority would definitely mind due to the implications as seen above.
We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. If the government wants to restrict the rights of a citizen the burden is on the government to prove that the citizen shouldn't be allowed to exercise the right, the default positon is that people's rights are respected, intact and able to be exercised. In order to flip that on its head and have people not have rights until they prove to the government that they have an express "need" to exercise a right we'd have to scrap our system of governance and jurisprudence and start over with something new and different.
Herzlos wrote: If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.
Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.
In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.
It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.
I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.
Are you opposed to a licensing system that determines if you should be allowed to have a gun because you have the need for a gun.
That's how it works in the UK. Farmer? Deer culler? Target shooting club member? Need a gun? Not mentally ill, etc.? Here's your gun licence subject to rules about storage and so on.
If I want a gun or to buy ammo I have to go get state FOID card (firearms owner ID) which requires passing a background check, photo being kept on file with the state, and any weapon purchases are registered and serial numbers being sent to the feds. I'm fine with the current system, but it's also a lot of government scrutiny for something that is largely pointless. The vast majority of legally owned guns aren't used in crimes. So that places a lot of red tape and suspicion on innocent people who are being perfectly responsible and safe owners. On average people are far more reckless with their automobiles, alcohol, and cell phones which kill far more people every year and anyone can buy those without a fraction of the paperwork or any background checks.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Prestor Jon wrote: We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I imagine since then the guns owned by the population have probably shifted from being almost exclusively single shot rifles (maybe some bolt and lever action rifles in the late 1800's and early 1900's?) in rural areas for hunting, shooting Indians and fighting wars to these days being more handguns owned by people in urban and suburban areas.
Even in countries with more strict gun laws you can usually still get a licence for things like single shot or bolt action rifles without a huge amount of effort. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
The paradise known as 'Iowa'.
Iowa was the only place in my travels across where the US were the locals seemed unfriendly Well actually there were some nice friendly people at the University library, but outside of that, maybe I just went there during a bad week for Iowans. Oh and it was the only state where people drove slow, I assume because it must be one of the few places with traffic cameras? Maybe that's why people were less friendly as well?
Prestor Jon wrote: We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I imagine since then the guns owned by the population have probably shifted from being almost exclusively single shot rifles (maybe some bolt and lever action rifles in the late 1800's and early 1900's?) in rural areas for hunting, shooting Indians and fighting wars to these days being more handguns owned by people in urban and suburban areas.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
The paradise known as 'Iowa'.
Iowa was the only place in my travels across where the US were the locals seemed unfriendly Well actually there were some nice friendly people at the University library, but outside of that, maybe I just went there during a bad week for Iowans. Oh and it was the only state where people drove slow, I assume because it must be one of the few places with traffic cameras? Maybe that's why people were less friendly as well?
We've always had citizens owning what are essentially the same firearms as our military. Semi automatic rifles have been marketed to civilians since the early 1900s. The most common hunting caliber in the US is still .30-06 which is the same caliber as the main battle rifles we used in WWI, WWII and Korea. There's very little difference between an AR15 and an M4 and AR15s are extremely popular and sell very well. Criminals definitely prefer to use pistols that are easier to conceal than rifles, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2014/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2014-Chapter-8-summary-EN.pdf However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
Currently the civilian market has roughly the same amount of rifles and pistols in it, meaning that Americans own roughly equally amounts of each right now. I've never found any reliable stats on firearms ownership or number of guns owned that predate the Gallup ownership survey started in the 1950s or the NICS check system that started in 1998. Prior to that there really weren't any measures in place to track them. The closest thing I've come across is manufacturing data from firearm manufactures like Colt but that's only a small part of the overall picture.
One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances. Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort. Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
Um, Feral Dogs are a nationwide issue, so you should probably watch out for that.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances.
thats a hard thing to judge, and given the legal standard for conviction, if there is even a remote possibility that such was true, can result in unexpected verdicts. That said, it's not bought by juries all the time, most times it is in fact rejected.
Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort.
Yes, to a point. If someone feels they are in immediate physical danger, the last resort can be the first and only resort.
Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances. Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort. Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
I doubt the old dirtbag is getting away with this. Cold comfort to the victim for sure, but it's not like you can shout "they're comin' right for us!" and start shooting with impunity.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
Well there wasn't much chance of him getting away with saying "Nah, I didn't do it".
I haven't been following but it seems the defence lawyer is trying to hit the "witness contamination" point as best he can. Witnesses weren't separated, apparently some statements were taken but not recorded, and one witness was interviewed with their spouse instead of alone, maybe some other stuff as I said I haven't really been following it.
I guess it goes back to what I was thinking earlier, with Reeves' wife saying "there was no need to shoot him" and other witnesses saying things along the lines of Reeves saying "i'll teach you" or "I'll show you" or possibly goading Oulson in to acting rashly... with all those testimonies the chance of getting off on "I was scared for my life" reduces, so the lawyer is going down the road of trying to show the witness statements aren't accurate.
EDIT: One of the witnesses said...
Roy said she feared Reeves was about to start a fight.
"I knew that Mr. Reeves was a very big man, and he frightened me," she said.
Reeves was 6-foot-1 and 270 pounds, according to his arrest affidavit.
Good thing Roy didn't pull a gun and blow Reeves away as well. 270lbs, he may have been old but he wasn't small, didn't seem all that overweight in the pictures.
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
Currently the civilian market has roughly the same amount of rifles and pistols in it, meaning that Americans own roughly equally amounts of each right now. I've never found any reliable stats on firearms ownership or number of guns owned that predate the Gallup ownership survey started in the 1950s or the NICS check system that started in 1998. Prior to that there really weren't any measures in place to track them. The closest thing I've come across is manufacturing data from firearm manufactures like Colt but that's only a small part of the overall picture.
Probate records are a good way of tracking historical ownership of guns, since they were expensive items than were left in wills.
Probate records are a good way of tracking historical ownership of guns, since they were expensive items than were left in wills.
Honestly that is one of the silliest things I've read recently.
Are you going to toss away the 4th amendment too? Other wise attorney/client privilege is gonna make accessing a lot of executed wills pretty difficult. Of course it also misses the many guns passed on before death as the owner gets older and passes his/her collection on to kids/grand kids while still alive. It also misses the many guns not itemized in wills. Any law requiring the info to be passed to the gov't is gonna result in less and less guns appearing in wills.
I think you also overestimate the 'expensive' part of guns making them worth itemizing in wills. Not every gun is a multi-thousand dollar collector's item.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
I don't think it's anything to do with the media, or any bias. It probably has more to do with the fact that YOU (in another topic), said that you tutored your men to rehearse that exact phrase, in case they shot someone. Then when we listened to the interview with the shooter in this incident (an former cop), he's spinning the same old yarn, even though the witness statements paint a much darker picture.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
I don't think it's anything to do with the media, or any bias. It probably has more to do with the fact that YOU (in another topic), said that you tutored your men to rehearse that exact phrase, in case they shot someone. Then when we listened to the interview with the shooter in this incident (an former cop), he's spinning the same old yarn, even though the witness statements paint a much darker picture.
I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
Regardless, my post you just quoted is accurate. Self Defense is what is termed an affirmative defense, and it IS risky, rarely works, and most lawyers will advise against it unless it is VERY clear cut.
The Media DOES highlight the edge cases, and they DO confirm bias against these types of laws.
CptJake wrote: I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
Yes, you are correct. It was redleger who said it, and then you showed me your insurance card (which has something similar printed on it). Please accept my deepest apologies for the error.
The Media DOES highlight the edge cases, and they DO confirm bias against these types of laws.
Not sure what about that you find inaccurate.
Yes perhaps I misspoke, as I have no reference for how often the defence is successful. The point I was trying to make was more about the message that is being sent out, and what people are being lead to believe is acceptable. Don't you find it at least a little bit odd that you have an insurance card which tells you what to say after an incident, even though that may not be anything close to the truth (hypothetically).
Looks like the hearing is wrapped up, judge will have an order written up by next Friday no later than 3:00.
Defence's closing statements were basically witness contamination and Oulson being a big terrifying 6'4 205lb person coming over the chairs to bash him up.
The state on the other hand reiterates several witness comments that make it hard to believe Reeves was scared or had good reason to be scared and is pushing home the "retaliation" rather than "self defence" angle.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
I don't think it's anything to do with the media, or any bias. It probably has more to do with the fact that YOU (in another topic), said that you tutored your men to rehearse that exact phrase, in case they shot someone. Then when we listened to the interview with the shooter in this incident (an former cop), he's spinning the same old yarn, even though the witness statements paint a much darker picture.
Ive been on duty the last 36 hours so I missed last 2 pages, so I will only reply to this one thing. You are referring to me. And the meaning of this has been spun so out of control. If someone makes a bad call, its a bad call. But the initial reaction to freeze in a combat zone and get your friends and team mates killed is a very very different situation than the one we are discussing here. I taught them to use that phrase in their head as a lot of the new privates were anxious, scared, and worred about what happens after a fire fight when propaganda kicks in and there is an investigation because some woman is claiming we killed some dude in cold blood when in reality he was planting IEDs and trying to ambush us. The two are not even close to the same thing. The man in this situation did not hesitate when he should have, where as there should be no hesitation in the scenario I described in the other thread which you now seem to be intent on spinning differently.
Don't you find it at least a little bit odd that you have an insurance card which tells you what to say after an incident, even though that may not be anything close to the truth (hypothetically).
No, because the advice every competent lawyer gives their clients regardless of the alleged crime (even in non-violence/non-gun crimes) is DON'T say anything to the police and never consent to a search. And the card tells the client exactly that.
"First call 911. After the police arrive, only say the following:
Explain: This man tried to kill me
Complaint: I am willing to sign a complaint
Evidence: There is his weapon
Witnesses: Those people saw the attack
Silence: Officer, I will cooperate 100% but first I need to speak with my attorney"
The card is meant to be handed to the cops.
It is exactly because 'self defense' cases are so difficult that insurance like this exists. It gives access to lawyers who specialize in this type of defense and who are familiar with gun laws in your area. You buy the insurance not because you want to need it, but because Lord forbid you do find yourself in the position it helps your family not go bankrupt and may give you access to assets which keep you out of prison.
The specific company I use, USCCA, offers training packages including threat de-escalation, when to shoot/when not to shoot, local laws, as well as gun safety, home security, identifying and avoiding threats and so on. It isn't like they are all about "Hey, go kill folks and we'll help you stay out of jail!". They very much promote SAFE gun ownership and RESPONSIBLE actions.
Don't you find it at least a little bit odd that you have an insurance card which tells you what to say after an incident, even though that may not be anything close to the truth (hypothetically).
No, because the advice every competent lawyer gives their clients regardless of the alleged crime (even in non-violence/non-gun crimes) is DON'T say anything to the police and never consent to a search. And the card tells the client exactly that.
"First call 911. After the police arrive, only say the following:
Explain: This man tried to kill me
Complaint: I am willing to sign a complaint
Evidence: There is his weapon
Witnesses: Those people saw the attack
Silence: Officer, I will cooperate 100% but first I need to speak with my attorney"
The card is meant to be handed to the cops.
It is exactly because 'self defense' cases are so difficult that insurance like this exists. It gives access to lawyers who specialize in this type of defense and who are familiar with gun laws in your area. You buy the insurance not because you want to need it, but because Lord forbid you do find yourself in the position it helps your family not go bankrupt and may give you access to assets which keep you out of prison.
The specific company I use, USCCA, offers training packages including threat de-escalation, when to shoot/when not to shoot, local laws, as well as gun safety, home security, identifying and avoiding threats and so on. It isn't like they are all about "Hey, go kill folks and we'll help you stay out of jail!". They very much promote SAFE gun ownership and RESPONSIBLE actions.
This is spot on. Just because you have car insurance does not mean you are looking to go get in a wreck, in fact I would say no one(yes there may be exceptions) is looking to just go out and get in a wreck because they like the way broken glass and bodies look on the asphalt. Just typing that seemed absurd. In our country you can have a gun, Understanding that there are legal issues if you have to use this weapon/tool is also responsible. Would make sense to not defend your family from death or harm just to go to jail and leave them without income/father/husband.
redleger wrote:Just because you have car insurance does not mean you are looking to go get in a wreck ... Just typing that seemed absurd.
Well that is absurd, but, respectfully, strawmen arguments tend to be absurd by design. To clarify, absolutely no one (especially not me), was arguing that "owning insurance: implies intent". That is not what is being discussed. If you genuinely thought that point was being argued, then I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding is all it ever was.
What I'm actually saying is that laws are an extension of our values. They provide a framework for the behaviour that we (as a society) expect from individuals.
Because we have quite severe firearm restrictions in the UK, there exists a misconception (in the US) that people in the UK are not allowed to defend themselves. It may interest you to know that this is patently untrue. In the UK, you absolutely do have the right to shoot and kill someone in self defence. However, it had better be your last and only resort. If it can be shown that you had a "reasonable" opportunity to retreat, or otherwise avoid killing someone, then you could end up in a lot of trouble. Our values dictate that taking a life is a very serious matter, and should only ever be "considered" as a last resort. Those values are reflected in our laws. To the extent that you can't even own a gun for the purpose of "self defence", because there is a belief that allowing people such a weapon, will simply encourage them to overlook other options, such as retreating, or securing their property etc... (there are about a million things you can reasonably do before you have cause to shoot someone).
The crazy thing is, in the USA, you have the exact same values. You believe that taking a life is serious, and should only be done as a last resort. However, your laws and your politics don't really reflect that. Some states have removed the duty to retreat, and there is a constant rhetoric that you need a gun to defend your family, continual fearmongering, and people being instructed to shoot twice at centre mass etc... And yes, while I agree that "in the worst case" that may all be necessary, I believe that the whole "in the worst case" and "last resort" part of the message is being drowned out.
You show me a man who opened fire in a cinema for no good reason, and I'll show you a society that, collectivity, encouraged that kind of behaviour (albeit inadvertently).
You show me a man who opened fire in a cinema for no good reason, and I'll show you a society that, collectivity, encouraged that kind of behaviour (albeit inadvertently).
If you have something to add to the conversation, then please do so politely, and perhaps provide reasons, rather than rolling up, and posting abusive unfalsifiable spam.
If you have something to add to the conversation, then please do so politely, and perhaps provide reasons, rather than rolling up, and posting abusive unfalsifiable spam.
Your statement said the movie theater shooter was because of US culture. The urge to respond with a nice F you right back is strong.
I guess British culture created the thousand or so children who were molested there by one group. But see, that would be a stupid comment, just like yours.
Because we have quite severe firearm restrictions in the UK, there exists a misconception (in the US) that people in the UK are not allowed to defend themselves. It may interest you to know that this is patently untrue. In the UK, you absolutely do have the right to shoot and kill someone in self defence. However, it had better be your last and only resort. If it can be shown that you had a "reasonable" opportunity to retreat, or otherwise avoid killing someone, then you could end up in a lot of trouble. Our values dictate that taking a life is a very serious matter, and should only ever be "considered" as a last resort. Those values are reflected in our laws. To the extent that you can't even own a gun for the purpose of "self defence", because there is a belief that allowing people such a weapon, will simply encourage them to overlook other options, such as retreating, or securing their property etc... (there are about a million things you can reasonably do before you have cause to shoot someone).
You absolutely do NOT have the right to shoot and kill in self defense, because your gov't makes it damned hard to legally own the tool required to shoot someone, let alone carry that tool around so that it is with you when/where you mat need it. Hell, you then go and state the part I highlight in orange. Not allowed to have the tool? Then the right does not exist for the vast majority of the people under the gov't control.
We had (may still have) some states/municipalities which require a person to retreat. feth that. That is stating via the law that the individual does not have the right to defend themselves except under VERY narrow parameters determined by the gov't after the fact. That isn't much of a right, and the gov't can shrink the parameters at their will, as your gov't has done.
A big part of the problem is most certainly that it's mostly cases like these that get media coverage, and getting any sort of statistical information on a huge country divided into states is incredibly hard because some states don't even collect the necessary information.
How many responsible gun owners manage to handle it without pulling their gun, or pulling it and not shooting, for every idiot who decides to shoot first?
As it has been said before, it's important for non-Brit dakka members to realise that self-defence is obviously permitted in Britain, and that you have the right to defend your home from invasion/burgulary etc etc
We tend to assess each case individually, rather than have a blanket law for every instance of self-defence.
So, if people break into your house at 3am, and you feel threatened, as you would, and you smack them with a cricket bat or whatever, a jury would in all likelihood clear you, because you're not expected to act rationally and do a risk assessment in the heat of the moment!
If you chase them away, pursue them for miles, and then beat the gak out of them, that's different
similarly, if you whack somebody with a cricket bat in self-defence, thus incapacitating them, but then continue to whack them as they lay on the ground, and witnesses say the threat was over, the judge may not be impressed, as the threat could be deemed to be over.
,
Automatically Appended Next Post: This what the Lord Chief Justice said a few years back:
"He said: "I suspect if any of you have come home to find a burglar in your home, or have been in bed at night -- or indeed having an afternoon snooze and found a burglar in your home - you are not calmly detached. You are probably very cross and you are probably very frightened - a mixture of both -and your judgment of precisely what you should or should not do in the circumstances cannot, as another predecessor of mine, Lord Lane, said, you cannot measure it in a jeweller's scale. You have to face the reality of how people are and how people react to these situations - and justifiably react.
"The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar and that in measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you are not doing a paper exercise six months later. You have to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear, and with all the various different emotions which will be generated, and who has no time for calm reflection."
Americans may think Britain is some kind of Commie, Beatnik, hippy free for all, but we do have self-defence laws in this nation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As it has been said before, it's important for non-Brit dakka members to realise that self-defence is obviously permitted in Britain, and that you have the right to defend your home from invasion/burgulary etc etc
,
Actually we took our self defense laws generally from the British. The only major difference comes in the duty to retreat or not.
I do not know what the duty is in Britain, but I am pretty sure grandma does not have a duty to retreat there either.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As it has been said before, it's important for non-Brit dakka members to realise that self-defence is obviously permitted in Britain, and that you have the right to defend your home from invasion/burgulary etc etc
,
Actually we took our self defense laws generally from the British. The only major difference comes in the duty to retreat or not.
I do not know what the duty is in Britain, but I am pretty sure grandma does not have a duty to retreat there either.
Frazz, our British grandmas felt no need to retreat from Hitler and his henchmen, they're used to blood, sweat, and tears, so I doubt if they'll be fazed by some petty criminal in this day and age.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As it has been said before, it's important for non-Brit dakka members to realise that self-defence is obviously permitted in Britain, and that you have the right to defend your home from invasion/burgulary etc etc
,
Actually we took our self defense laws generally from the British. The only major difference comes in the duty to retreat or not.
I do not know what the duty is in Britain, but I am pretty sure grandma does not have a duty to retreat there either.
Frazz, our British grandmas felt no need to retreat from Hitler and his henchmen, they're used to blood, sweat, and tears, so I doubt if they'll be fazed by some petty criminal in this day and age.
Exactly. Now Florida has some specific statutes on the subject permit hearings and such that are actually quite different IIRC then other states, which are more in the format you are used to.
But for women and grandma the "duty to retreat" is generally irrelevant either in the US or UK. The law is the same, just the method of defense is different.
In the US, Grandma Frazzled uses her trusty double barreled shotgun. In England, she uses her trusty double barreled shotgun. in Scotland she uses her trusty double barreled Claymore. Moral of the story...don't with grandma.
Frazzled wrote: I guess British culture created the thousand or so children who were molested there by one group. But see, that would be a stupid comment, just like yours.
Contrary to the point you were trying to make, it's not stupid at all (and neither was my point). There have been cultural failings in the UK which have allowed child abusers to go unchecked for many years. This isn't a uniquely British problem, you might also remember it happened within the Catholic church, because there was a culture of denial and covering up,
In any case, I have seen nothing to suggest that Britain has a significantly larger incidence of child abuse that the US (in fact I believe it might be lower). On the other had the US has a significantly larger problem with gun crime and gun violence than the UK. So maybe you're right that your comment was stupid, but ironically because of the difference, rather than its similarity to mine.
If you don't think culture plays a part in how people behave then you might need to look up the definition of culture, because that's pretty much all it is. In America you have a strong gun culture. Owning a gun is made to sound almost patriotic: "defend your country from tyranny". People are encouraged to carry a gun with them at all times. Then when something bad happens involving a gun (which is all the time), you say "well it was just that one guy", but really it's not.
Claiming that America's gun problems are the result of a tiny minority of bad people, is like claiming traffic accidents are all caused by maniac drivers. The truth is, most crashes involve normal "mostly safe" drivers, who make a mistake. It might be so rare for them that it only happens once in a lifetime, but all those "uncommon" mistakes add up to thousands per day nationally.
CptJake wrote: You absolutely do NOT have the right to shoot and kill in self defense, because your gov't makes it damned hard to legally own the tool required to shoot someone,
It's really not that hard to get a gun here, all you really need to do is show that you want it for a legitimate reason, rather than to commit a crime.
let alone carry that tool around so that it is with you when/where you mat need it. Hell, you then go and state the part I highlight in orange. Not allowed to have the tool? Then the right does not exist for the vast majority of the people under the gov't control.
In the UK, there is no restriction on what you may use to defend yourself, just as there is no restriction on what people use to commit a crime. The only restriction is (as you have identified) availability, but this lack of availability affects criminals as well. Gun crime is extremely uncommon in the UK, so carrying a gun around with you at all times "just in case" would probably pose a greater threat to you and the general public than armed criminals do.
CptJake wrote: We had (may still have) some states/municipalities which require a person to retreat. feth that. That is stating via the law that the individual does not have the right to defend themselves except under VERY narrow parameters determined by the gov't after the fact. That isn't much of a right, and the gov't can shrink the parameters at their will, as your gov't has done.
Generally speaking, you have the right defend yourself and others, and providing that's all you do you shouldn't have any problem. What you can't do is beat the hell out of someone because they broke into your house, or behave in a vindictive manner.
Frazzled wrote: Please remind me where in your bull gak post any of that has anything to do with the right of self defense.
Why do you always feel the need to be so rude? I was responding directly to something you said to me. You didn't say anything about self defence, you were talking about American culture, me fething off, and British people being paedophiles. What does any of that have to do with self defence?
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
Frazzled wrote: Please remind me where in your bull gak post any of that has anything to do with the right of self defense.
Why do you always feel the need to be so rude? I was responding directly to something you said to me. You didn't say anything about self defence, you were talking about American culture, me fething off, and British people being paedophiles. What does any of that have to do with self defence?
You started it by your own post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
Please show me where "the gun lobby" has done anything of the sort. Please also define who "the gun lobby" is. If you're saying its the NRA, please show me where the NRA has supported your statements and remember, libel and slander laws extend to the internet.
Also how is grandma going to run away? Should a mother have to run away in your view? How about a 20 year old co-ed? How about grandpa? How about a guy in a wheel chair?
The gun lobby is responsible for these bs stand your ground laws.
And Frazz, unsurprisingly, spouts more inane blathering that totally ignores the point I was making in a Trumpian attempt to obfuscate things. I'm not going to give a response to your strawman and dishonest argumemt. If you want to act like an adult and have an honest discussion, I'm all for it.
I did not start nor am I continuing anything. My post (before you turned up here calling me asinine) was all about self defence, and differing attitudes towards it between two developed nations, and how those attitudes might be shaped by cultural factors, such as laws, media, and politics. Which they absolutely are.
Frazzled wrote: I guess British culture created the thousand or so children who were molested there by one group. But see, that would be a stupid comment, just like yours.
Contrary to the point you were trying to make, it's not stupid at all (and neither was my point). There have been cultural failings in the UK which have allowed child abusers to go unchecked for many years. This isn't a uniquely British problem, you might also remember it happened within the Catholic church, because there was a culture of denial and covering up,
In any case, I have seen nothing to suggest that Britain has a significantly larger incidence of child abuse that the US (in fact I believe it might be lower). On the other had the US has a significantly larger problem with gun crime and gun violence than the UK.
The US has a significantly larger *violence* issue, even with firearms entirely removed. If you removed every gun and gun death from the US, the US still has more deaths from violence on a per capita basis than other developed nations. Gun crime and violence is symptomatic of deeper issues, focusing on just the guns ignores the more fundamental reality that there's just more violence here in general, that tends to be heavily concentrated in certain areas (though not always just in "urban" problem centers either).
If you don't think culture plays a part in how people behave then you might need to look up the definition of culture, because that's pretty much all it is. In America you have a strong gun culture. Owning a gun is made to sound almost patriotic: "defend your country from tyranny". People are encouraged to carry a gun with them at all times. Then when something bad happens involving a gun (which is all the time), you say "well it was just that one guy", but really it's not.
Claiming that America's gun problems are the result of a tiny minority of bad people, is like claiming traffic accidents are all caused by maniac drivers. The truth is, most crashes involve normal "mostly safe" drivers, who make a mistake. It might be so rare for them that it only happens once in a lifetime, but all those "uncommon" mistakes add up to thousands per day nationally.
If we were talking about accidents and negligence, sure. When talking about criminal misuse, that's a much different issue altogether. Deaths and injuries from firearm accidents are extremely rare, with several hundred million firearms in the US, the numbers of people killed in firearms accidents is fewer than die slipping and falling in the bathroom every year.
Yes the US has a much different culture around firearms. Yes there's a lot more deaths due to firearms. We also have far more deaths from non-firearms violence per capita than the UK has from all violence including firearms.
It's really not that hard to get a gun here, all you really need to do is show that you want it for a legitimate reason, rather than to commit a crime.
"Legitimate reason" has very different cultural meanings between the US and the UK (and, legally speaking, self defense is not a valid reason to own a gun in the UK even if it's just for personal home protection), and in the UK it's a much more intensive process that can be denied for pretty much any reason the police feel like. Likewise, having to get character references from people who've known you for years, get doctors clearance, have to get permission for *each* firearm, renew that license routinely, and (invasive by US standards) home inspections by police. Handguns cannot be owned at all except in NI, and other types of firearms are heavily restricted in terms of function and operation. Also the police can attach additional restrictions to your license if they feel like it. That's far from "really not that hard to get a gun". It's *possible* to get a gun, but it's an involved and dedicated process that can be quite difficult.
Generally speaking, you have the right defend yourself and others
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.
and providing that's all you do you shouldn't have any problem. What you can't do is beat the hell out of someone because they broke into your house, or behave in a vindictive manner.
You can't in the US either, unless in self defense, however it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default, but you can't shoot someone in the back while running away or continue to inflict harm after a threat has ended. Doing these things can and does get people arrested and convicted routinely.
EDIT: everyone, lets cool off a bit here lest we get the lock.
Nostromodamus wrote: I remember throughout my entire concealed carry course that the instructor emphasised de-escelation and that the firearm was the last resort.
Maybe that was an exception to the norm?
Probably varies by instructor/state (I don't think all states require instruction to get a cc permit either. Might be wrong there).
But the laws and culture don't support de-escalation/violence as a last resort.
Just look at all the people in this thread defending the man who shot someone over popcorn after escallating the situation.
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense. In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.
Nostromodamus wrote: I remember throughout my entire concealed carry course that the instructor emphasised de-escelation and that the firearm was the last resort.
Maybe that was an exception to the norm?
Probably varies by instructor/state (I don't think all states require instruction to get a cc permit either. Might be wrong there).
But the laws and culture don't support de-escalation/violence as a last resort.
Just look at all the people in this thread defending the man who shot someone over popcorn after escallating the situation.
Many states are shall issue states which require individuals to be state residents and pass a background check, some require a training course of a few hours in length, many do not. There are also 12 states that are unrestricted states that allow any state resident that can legally possess firearms to carry a firearm concealed, no permit necessary. Most states' carry laws are very old and predate the existence of the NRA or the "gun lobby." Vermont, for example, is an unrestricted state that doesn't require residents to obtain a concealed carry permit because concealed carry without a permit has been legal in Vermont since the state was created.
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.
It's a reasonable point Vaktathi, but if I just so happen to have a fence post sitting by my bedside, there's not a lot the law can do if said fence post is used to repel intruders at 3am
Honestly, Constable, I brought the fence post in for a repair job earlier, but left it in my bedroom by mistake and forgot all about it. Luckily for me, it was there when I needed it...
Generally speaking, you have the right defend yourself and others
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.
It's a reasonable point Vaktathi, but if I just so happen to have a fence post sitting by my bedside, there's not a lot the law can do if said fence post is used to repel intruders at 3am
Honestly, Constable, I brought the fence post in for a repair job earlier, but left it in my bedroom by mistake and forgot all about it. Luckily for me, it was there when I needed it...
You guys must have some wimpy fence posts. I use 6-8 inch diameter 8ft long posts for my fences, with 6ft steel T-posts in between. No way I'm storing one of those by the bed let alone swinging one around. Hell, just lifting the wood posts to set them in the hole sucks, and the steel T-posts get really heavy really quick too.
(Son2 and myself putting up a pasture fence a couple summers ago, wood posts sunk in 3 feet and held with 60 pounds of quickcrete.)
Frazzled wrote: Also how is grandma going to run away? Should a mother have to run away in your view? How about a 20 year old co-ed? How about grandpa? How about a guy in a wheel chair?
A duty to retreat doesn't mean you're legally forced to try and run away. It just means that you took reasonable measures to avoid the conflict, rather than seek it (and it doesn't usually apply in your own home). Obviously, if you are unable to retreat because of age or disability, or if retreating might be dangerous, then there is absolutely no obligation to do so. While the subject of SYG has become heavily politicized, it is rarely meaningful.
The UK actually has no formal duty to retreat, but it can be helpful to a self defence case if you can show that you tried to avoid the conflict. That is also likely to be true in SYG states.
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.
Travonn Martin disagrees with you
In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.
No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.
I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.
Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.
Do you have data backing up your claim that "SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed"?
Seems to be the case that most gun violence is still gang/crime related and SYG rarely comes into play. Violent crimes are down over all except in a few municipalities (like Chicago) where SYG laws don't really come into play.
Studies seem to support SYG laws do lead to increased violence or do not lead to increased violence, depending on who commissioned the study...
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.
It's a reasonable point Vaktathi, but if I just so happen to have a fence post sitting by my bedside, there's not a lot the law can do if said fence post is used to repel intruders at 3am
Honestly, Constable, I brought the fence post in for a repair job earlier, but left it in my bedroom by mistake and forgot all about it. Luckily for me, it was there when I needed it...
Sure, and I dont doubt that such is often done that way, but it needs to be acknowledged that such is a loophole, circumventing the law.
The law allows one to utilize weapons, or items used as weapon, in self defense if they happen to be there by chance for some other reason, but the law fundamentally does not allow one to own, keep, or bear anything explicitly intended to be used for self defense.
At least as I understand it.
jouso wrote:
You can get a shotgun easily enough, though.
for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding)
We can point to all sorts of random anecdotes on any side to make a point, but it doesnt show the whole picture either. The Martin/Zimmerman case was played up and poorly handled by many different groups and ultimately became a political vehicle for culture war issues way beyond the scope of the event. Ultimately I disagree with how it went down, but Zimmerman was arrested, charged and sent to trial for his actions, where a Florida jury decided there decided there was enough reasonable doubt such that they could not convict. Doesnt mean what Zimmerman did was legal or right however.
The Zimmerman trial had NOTHING to do with SYG laws, his lawyers did NOT use those laws a defense (he was pinned to the ground unable to retreat so the SYG laws did not come into play at all).
CptJake wrote: Do you have data backing up your claim that "SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed"?
Seems to be the case that most gun violence is still gang/crime related and SYG rarely comes into play. Violent crimes are down over all except in a few municipalities (like Chicago) where SYG laws don't really come into play.
Studies seem to support SYG laws do lead to increased violence or do not lead to increased violence, depending on who commissioned the study...
Studies are irrelevant. In a situation where you can retreat, adding the option to use violence instead of retreating means that the law makes more violence acceptable. That is the problem witb SYG laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: The Zimmerman trial had NOTHING to do with SYG laws, his lawyers did NOT use those laws a defense (he was pinned to the ground unable to retreat so the SYG laws did not come into play at all).
He initiated the confrontation.You claimed that in no state can you initiate a conflict then claim self defense. That is not true in Florida apparently ,)
I did not start nor am I continuing anything. My post (before you turned up here calling me asinine) was all about self defence, and differing attitudes towards it between two developed nations, and how those attitudes might be shaped by cultural factors, such as laws, media, and politics. Which they absolutely are.
Again, please show where US culture supports someone clearly insane shooting up a movie theater and tying that in some manner to self defense. Unless you are espousing that the government start locking up everyone deemed potentially unstable (good luck) there's no society issue. Otherwise thats the same as the slack jawed yokels arguing that Islam is a religious culture that breeds terrorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nostromodamus wrote: I remember throughout my entire concealed carry course that the instructor emphasised de-escelation and that the firearm was the last resort.
Maybe that was an exception to the norm?
Mine said if they hurt one of you you put two of theirs in the morgue, citing some legal precedent called "the Chicago way" I could never find it in the appropriate code though. He also said Sean Connery is the greatest evah but I didn't understand the relationship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He initiated the confrontation.You claimed that in no state can you initiate a conflict then claim self defense. That is not true in Florida apparently ,)
Please cite the evidence that Z started the confrontation?
skyth wrote: He's the one that got out of his car to chase Travonn down. That is initiating a confrontation...
again, he was arrested, charged and put on trial for this. A jury had enough doubt that they could not convict. Doesnt mean what he did was right, legal, or anything else, it just means a jury couldnt be convinced *beyond a reasonable doubt* that was he did was illegal in that one case, but Zimmerman was put before a court for what he did.
Here where I live we just had a guy who instigated a conflict at a rally (Michael Strickland) and pulled a gun once the situation ran away on him (thanfully he didnt actually shoot), he has been tried and convicted and awaits sentence.
skyth wrote: He's the one that got out of his car to chase Travonn down. That is initiating a confrontation...
1. Please define "chase him down." 2. Please define confrontation and cite where Z following T had been found previously to be a cause sufficient to mitigate the claim of self defense in other cases or under the appropriate statute.
Just because you say its a thing doesn't mean the actual criminal justice says its a thing.
If you have something to add to the conversation, then please do so politely, and perhaps provide reasons, rather than rolling up, and posting abusive unfalsifiable spam.
Your statement said the movie theater shooter was because of US culture. The urge to respond with a nice F you right back is strong.
I guess British culture created the thousand or so children who were molested there by one group. But see, that would be a stupid comment, just like yours.
Uh, Frazzled, they know that British Culture is harmful to British Children. They have even enshrined this knowledge in their greatest Pink Floyd song. Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.
Travonn Martin disagrees with you
In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.
No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.
I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.
Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.
The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.
The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack. SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does. Previous Duty to Retreat laws imposed upon the victim the need to prioritize the decision of how to get away as soon as the attack manifested, Stand Your Ground laws removed that imposition and gave the victim the freedom to choose from either fight or flight depending on the specifics of the situation with no legal penalty. The results of that decision are then judged on their own merits.
Uh, Frazzled, they know that British Culture is harmful to British Children. They have even enshrined this knowledge in their greatest Pink Floyd song. Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
My wfie would agree with your statement.
On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.
What can I say? I work with people from NYC. "hey you dropped your wallet." " you you ing ! Thanks!"
Funny thing when I hear about rude New Yorkers, I never met anything other than nice people when I was in NYC.
Maybe the problem is just old people, perhaps everyone hates them and they just want to shoot everyone.
Fraz, do you find people are inclined to throw things at you (like, I dunno, phones and popcorn?) and do you occasionally get the urge to shoot people (say, perhaps, in movie theatres?).
for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .
I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).
No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.
You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)
It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Funny thing when I hear about rude New Yorkers, I never met anything other than nice people when I was in NYC.
Maybe the problem is just old people, perhaps everyone hates them and they just want to shoot everyone.
Fraz, do you find people are inclined to throw things at you (like, I dunno, phones and popcorn?) and do you occasionally get the urge to shoot people (say, perhaps, in movie theatres?).
You know it. I hate it when everyone gets together with torches and pitchforks, shouting "look there's the monster" and "kill the monster" and "get the monster!" and chasing me with the fire and the burney burney. Why is it villagers always seem to come up with flaming torches out of nowhere? Whats up with that???
As for urge to shoot them? Nope. But I will admit, when I take my tank ride for my birthday I'm bringing THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TICKED ME OFF (its phone book sized now!)
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.
Travonn Martin disagrees with you
In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.
No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.
I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.
Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.
The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.
reasonable doubt is a lot easier when only one person is alive to give their story.
The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack.
Yes they do.
SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does.
*blinks* really? If you run away you are *just* as likely to use lethal force than if you didn't run away?
The dishonesty in that statement just boggles the mind.
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.
Travonn Martin disagrees with you
In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.
No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.
I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.
Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.
The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.
reasonable doubt is a lot easier when only one person is alive to give their story.
The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack.
Yes they do.
SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does.
*blinks* really? If you run away you are *just* as likely to use lethal force than if you didn't run away?
The dishonesty in that statement just boggles the mind.
Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?
How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.
Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.
Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.
Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?
Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.
How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.
Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.
And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence. I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.
Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.
And that is an EXTREMELY deceptive way to phrase what they do. In no way do Duty to Retreat laws not place responsibility for an attack on the attacker. What they do is say that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. That is why they are good laws.
for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .
I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).
No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.
You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)
It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
TIL, I thought the home inspection and references and whatnot were still part of that. Thanks for the clarification.
Oddly enough though, that is still more red tape than what one in the US would need for an anti tank cannon, mortar or heavy machinegun, barring the market costs of such items (requires $200 tax, 3-9 month paperwork backlog wait, background check with photo and fingerprint, and notification, but not approval, of chief local law enforcement officer).
Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?
Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.
How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.
Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.
And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence. I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.
Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.
And that is an EXTREMELY deceptive way to phrase what they do. In no way do Duty to Retreat laws not place responsibility for an attack on the attacker. What they do is say that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. That is why they are good laws.
SYG laws don't require that anyone stands their ground it just doesn't penalize people that do. SYG laws don't create any situations they just allow victims of criminal assaults to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to flee from an attacker or attempt to fight off an attacker. They certainly don't instill any desire to commit violence in anyone.
It's an EXTREMELY accurate description because that is EXACTLY what the Duty to Retreat laws did. That's why states started to abolish them over 140 years ago long before states were passing Stand Your Ground laws in 2005. Since Florida passed the first SYG law in 2005 34 more states have passed or created similar protections. There's only 1 state that still has a full Duty to Retreat law and 14 states that have Castle Doctrine laws and Duty to Retreat laws for public confrontations. We have consistently removed Duty to Retreat laws across all the regions of the country in states that vary in politics and urban/rural makeup and population size because they all recognize how bad Duty to Retreat laws are. If an individual is attacked that individual has the right to determine for himself/herself whether fighting or fleeing is the best option and the state shouldn't impose any legal obligation on victim to avoid the criminal assaults of others. There is no "2 wrongs don't make a right" issue because defending yourself from being criminally assaulted by somebody isn't a wrong.
Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.
Again, please cite what actual legal argument you are relying on. It is legal to follow someone. Having been followed I know this personally. You can even pick your nose in front of them. This does not allow you to attempt to kill them which is what TM did.
And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence.
As noted, there is no duty for you to attempt to not be a criminal. That whole “you shouldn’t have worn that skirt” argument doesn’t work any more. Quit blaming the victim.
I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.
Reasonable people do care however.
The idea is that you should not put the burden on the victim for the criminal , but on the criminal. Otherwise unless your argument, if a person doesn’t successfully “flee” (define “flee” that’s where the courts broke down to making the requirement so byzantine that no victim could reasonably have met the standard) then well its too bad for them. They should have just let the criminals rape/kill them because they didn’t flee fast enough. feth grandma anyway…
SYG laws don't require that anyone stands their ground it just doesn't penalize people that do. SYG laws don't create any situations they just allow victims of criminal assaults to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to flee from an attacker or attempt to fight off an attacker. They certainly don't instill any desire to commit violence in anyone.
And you still aren't reading what I wrote.
It's an EXTREMELY accurate description because that is EXACTLY what the Duty to Retreat laws did.
That right there is a load of bullgak.
uty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker.
Strongly implies that this makes the attacker NOT responsible for the attack. That is not true. That is why I said it was deceptive. Also, they in no way place responsibility for the attack on the victim. The victim, IS however, responsible for their own reaction to the attack.
. If an individual is attacked that individual has the right to determine for himself/herself whether fighting or fleeing is the best option and the state shouldn't impose any legal obligation on victim to avoid the criminal assaults of others. There is no "2 wrongs don't make a right" issue because defending yourself from being criminally assaulted by somebody isn't a wrong.
Using violence when there is another alternative is very much a wrong. Vigilante's going around and taking the law into their own hands is a bad thing. Stand your ground laws are very much in the same vein. We, as a society, should be discouraging violence except under a very last resort. That is why SYG laws are bad. They are exactly two wrongs somehow make a right.
I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.
Vaktathi wrote: I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.
You don't say? :-)
I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.
But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.
Vaktathi wrote: I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.
You don't say? :-)
I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.
But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.
Most criminals aren't really looking to hurt anyone. Most people acknowledge that. The problem is the person who find them in their home doesn't know that for sure, and weird things happen when people get surprised, confronted, etc. Also, quite frequently, mind altering substances are in play which complicates things further. Additionally, a lot of these instances don't necessarily involve some unknown masked criminal breaking in and doing dastardly things, it may be the neighbors kid high out of his skull on PCP or the sister's ex boyfriend looking for a quick cash score from a place he's had the opportunity to case beforehand or a pissed off friend of a friend who got kicked out of the party for being a spanker and wants to cause trouble and gets carried away, and that can get real awkward. Ultimately, in my town we've had three people killed by homeowners in home invasions over the last year or so, only one of which was a random break in while the others apparently had some sort of previous interactions. Now, that's out of a metro population of nearly three million, but it does happen. Likewise, in some places in the US, those drug dealers or bikers breaking in absolutely won't hesitate to resort to violence if caught. There are some areas with reputations for good reason. They are rare, isolated exceptions, but absolutely exist. The US is just kind of a weird place relative to other developed nations.
Culturally, even with guns removed, the US just has more violence in general than most other developed nations. People also have...less respect for police authority in the US than in other nations, and are willing to be more aggressive. That's just a cultural anti-authoritarian streak, which while not unique to the US, is probably more aggressive in the US than most other developed nations. Relative to say, Japan, where almost nobody would refuse a police officer who asked to see their bag, that just wouldn't be socially acceptable, in the US police officers are instead frequently going to get a "**** off bacon grease, get a warrant!", and that carries over into willingness to get into confrontations with police as well for a variety of reasons.
skyth wrote: Using violence when there is another alternative is very much a wrong. Vigilante's going around and taking the law into their own hands is a bad thing. Stand your ground laws are very much in the same vein. We, as a society, should be discouraging violence except under a very last resort. That is why SYG laws are bad. They are exactly two wrongs somehow make a right.
First of all, that's something many of us would disagree with. If you use violence against an innocent victim then I have zero sympathy for you, regardless of what level of violence your would-be victim decides to use to stop you. In fact, the world becomes a better place when violent aggressors are removed from it by the people they intend to hurt.
Second, even if you believe that the use of violence in self defense should be a last resort, the theory doesn't work in practice. What it actually means is that the legal system is going to second-guess every action you take in self defense, in a situation where you have no time to think and carefully judge how much force is necessary or whether you have the ability to retreat. And so you have people going to prison because they missed an opportunity to retreat, regardless of whether or not they were able to see it at the time. What SYG laws do is remove this second-guessing and give the prosecution of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim went beyond what is necessary for self defense. If someone attacks you and you decide to shoot them in the back as they run away you're still going to prison, SYG law or no SYG law. If someone shoves you in an argument and you respond by shooting them you're probably going to prison. If you hear that someone did something awful and you hunt them down and shoot them (IOW, "vigilantes going around and taking the law into their own hands") you're going to prison.
for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .
I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).
No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.
You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)
It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
TIL, I thought the home inspection and references and whatnot were still part of that. Thanks for the clarification.
Oddly enough though, that is still more red tape than what one in the US would need for an anti tank cannon, mortar or heavy machinegun, barring the market costs of such items (requires $200 tax, 3-9 month paperwork backlog wait, background check with photo and fingerprint, and notification, but not approval, of chief local law enforcement officer).
Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.
I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough
Frazzled wrote: Again, please show where US culture supports someone clearly insane shooting up a movie theater and tying that in some manner to self defense.
Again, this case involves a man who opened fire in a cinema. The man is claiming self defence. There is nothing to suggest the shooter is insane, let alone clearly insane.
As for how cultural elements encourage that:
Firstly, there is a continual barrage of propaganda, spreading fear, and telling people how their lives in danger if they don't have a gun. This man felt compelled to carry a gun with him at all times.
Secondly, rather than dissuade this behaviour, it has been encouraged, and almost made to sound patriotic and heroic. CC and SYG legislation has enabled this man, and sent mixed messages about when lethal force is appropriate.
Thirdly, there is the training and practising with the weapon, which is also encouraged: "what to do if someone threatens your life", this is allegedly for a rare "worst case" scenario, but it conditions people to expect the worst, and be ready with their gun.
Fourthly, you have normalised this kind of extreme escalation, with the whole "assume they mean to kill you" mentality. If someone breaks into your house: shoot them dead. Someone has a weapon: shoot them dead (Oh! woops it was phone/dog leash/kid with a BB gun) too late. There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force. You always try to justify this by saying "well you have to assume they mean to kill you", which scares people into shooting first out fear for their lives. While that kind of thinking "might" on occasion save your life, you're also just as likely to make an awful mistake, such as killing a 12 year old kid, killing the postman, or shooting dead your own son getting home late.
So when someone throws popcorn at this guy in the cinema, of course he went straight for his gun. That's what he has be told to do, practising to do, preparing to do. Now I'm not going to say he was itching to shoot someone, but when an incident occurred he's got to have been thinking "Is this it? Is this the life/death fight I've been preparing for", and of course he immediately fell back on his training. You enabled this man to carry a lethal weapon, made him afraid for his life, and conditioned him to respond with lethal force. Then you try to claim that your culture didn't encourage him to shoot without thinking?
Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively murder an unarmed man because you're concerned he "might" punch you.
So when I say that the laws in the UK encourage people to use violence only as a last resort in self defence, I think I'm fairly justified in making that claim. And even though you can claim the same is true in America, there are many elements in the laws, and the politics, and the media, which are mixing that message, and encouraging people to reach for their guns first, rather than last.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.
To clarify, I wasn't criticizing all of American culture. Just a few cultural elements that I believe irresponsibly promote fear and escalation.
Smacks wrote: There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.
Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified. Throwing popcorn, holding a phone that might be a gun, etc, are not acceptable situations for the use of any force. If you go straight to lethal force in those situations you will go to prison and nobody will have any sympathy for you.
What US law and culture actually accept is going straight to lethal force when threatened with violence or attacked. If someone pulls a knife on you and tries to stab you there's no obligation to consider if there are lesser degrees of force that might get the job done, you are being attacked with lethal force and can respond appropriately. There is no second-guessing about whether you could have run away successfully, or if the attacker would have caught you and stabbed you in the back. There is no concern about "discretion" to avoid causing harm to someone who has forfeited their right to life by violently attacking an innocent victim. And I greatly prefer a culture and legal system where, when you are faced with a violent attacker, you can use whatever means are necessary to make sure that you survive, instead of worrying about what the law allows you to respond with as someone is actively trying to kill you.
Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively kill someone because you're concerned they "might" punch you.
Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.
Smacks wrote: There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.
Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified.
I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...
Vaktathi wrote: it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.
And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".
Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively kill someone because you're concerned they "might" punch you.
Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.
Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.
Smacks wrote: I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...
Vaktathi wrote: it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.
And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".
That's true because "stranger in your house" is inherently a violent situation, or at least a situation where a reasonable expectation of violence exists. If someone breaks into your house while there are people present it's assumed that they are willing to accept a confrontation with the residents, because otherwise they would have ensured that nobody was home before breaking in. And if you are required to verify that they are actually armed and attempting to hurt you before you can do anything that's a good way to get yourself shot/stabbed/beaten/etc. The option that best protects the innocent victim's life is that lethal force can be used immediately.
And note that this does NOT excuse the use of lethal force when there is clearly no threat. If the intruder tries to run as soon as they hear that someone is home you don't get to shoot them in the back as they're heading out the door. You can't blow away a salesman the moment they step onto your porch. Etc. If you shoot someone in that kind of situation you're going to prison.
Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.
And yet we don't have all those thousands of "stand your ground" murders over trivial offenses. The obvious conclusion here is that he is a "bad apple", a violent with anger problems no matter what badge he used to carry. The "stand your ground" issue appears to be nothing more than an attempt to get out of responsibility for murder, a murder that is the theater equivalent of road rage violence.
Peregrine wrote: And I greatly prefer a culture and legal system where, when you are faced with a violent attacker, you can use whatever means are necessary to make sure that you survive, instead of worrying about what the law allows you to respond with as someone is actively trying to kill you.
To be fair, the idea that anyone needs to worry about the law in the UK when someone is trying to kill you, is utter nonsense. However, if you have a gun in the house (as many rural homes do), and you discover a burglar, you could not assume a "self defence situation by default", unless they have a weapon or they attack, it would be considered unjustified to kill them (and rightly so, though the likelihood of a burglar with a gun in the UK is also much lower). Perhaps that is also the situation in America, but if it is, there sure seem to be a lot of people who don't know it.
Smacks wrote: To be fair, the idea that anyone needs to worry about the law in the UK when someone is trying to kill you, is utter nonsense.
But that's the situation you've created by having laws limiting the use of force to the minimum that is "necessary". The idea that you can just do whatever you need and not worry about the law is nonsense, that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that". The only way to have a situation where you don't have to worry about the law is to assume that any level of force is justified in self defense once a credible threat of violence is presented.
However, if you have a gun in the house (as many rural homes do), and you discover a burglar, you could not assume a "self defence situation by default", unless they have a weapon or they attack, it would be considered unjustified to kill them (an rightly so). Perhaps that is also the situation in America, but if it is, there sure seem to be a lot of people who don't know it.
How do you know if they have a weapon? It's dark, you're still fighting off the brain fog of just being woken up by someone breaking down your door, and they sure aren't going to announce that they have a weapon. You either act immediately on the assumption that they have a weapon and are a threat, or you accept that if they do have a weapon you're going to get shot/stabbed/whatever before you can confirm the presence of a weapon and prepare your own. Sucks to be them if they didn't have a weapon, but perhaps they should have thought of that before committing a crime and putting themselves in a situation where being shot is a possibility.
Vaktathi wrote: I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.
You don't say? :-)
I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.
But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.
Most criminals aren't really looking to hurt anyone. Most people acknowledge that. The problem is the person who find them in their home doesn't know that for sure, and weird things happen when people get surprised, confronted, etc. Also, quite frequently, mind altering substances are in play which complicates things further. Additionally, a lot of these instances don't necessarily involve some unknown masked criminal breaking in and doing dastardly things, it may be the neighbors kid high out of his skull on PCP or the sister's ex boyfriend looking for a quick cash score from a place he's had the opportunity to case beforehand or a pissed off friend of a friend who got kicked out of the party for being a spanker and wants to cause trouble and gets carried away, and that can get real awkward. Ultimately, in my town we've had three people killed by homeowners in home invasions over the last year or so, only one of which was a random break in while the others apparently had some sort of previous interactions. Now, that's out of a metro population of nearly three million, but it does happen. Likewise, in some places in the US, those drug dealers or bikers breaking in absolutely won't hesitate to resort to violence if caught. There are some areas with reputations for good reason. They are rare, isolated exceptions, but absolutely exist. The US is just kind of a weird place relative to other developed nations.
Culturally, even with guns removed, the US just has more violence in general than most other developed nations. People also have...less respect for police authority in the US than in other nations, and are willing to be more aggressive. That's just a cultural anti-authoritarian streak, which while not unique to the US, is probably more aggressive in the US than most other developed nations. Relative to say, Japan, where almost nobody would refuse a police officer who asked to see their bag, that just wouldn't be socially acceptable, in the US police officers are instead frequently going to get a "**** off bacon grease, get a warrant!", and that carries over into willingness to get into confrontations with police as well for a variety of reasons.
US violence rates are higher more in line with the rest of the Americas.
Peregrine wrote: that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that"
In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force. You aren't expected to gauge it perfectly, and there are, in fact, good legal precedents for that. So long as you can reasonably show that you were acting in self defence, and not out of malice, the defence should be accepted.
Peregrine wrote: The option that best protects the innocent victim's life is that lethal force can be used immediately.
Well, respectfully, that seems to be quite a typical attitude in the US, and it's a point I have already addressed, and made part of my argument. Firing immediately may be the right choice, or it might be a terrible choice, it actually depends on the situation.
Peregrine wrote: How do you know if they have a weapon? It's dark, you're still fighting off the brain fog
By the same measure, if it's dark and you're fighting off brain fog, how do you know it's not one of your kids rummaging about in the kitchen?
In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force.
What is your expertise in making that statement?
I'm just paraphrasing what expert judges have said during trials -- "If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action." -- Lord Morris
As I said, in the rest of that paragraph you quoted: there is a legal precedence for it. Morris also said "A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence."
EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that Self Defence in the UK is not an affirmative defence like in many parts of the US. For example, you don't have to admit a crime, but claim extenuating circumstances. You are presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that you are not. In the US, it's often the other way around, with the burden of proof being on the defendant to show there were extenuating circumstances.
In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force.
What is your expertise in making that statement?
I can tell you about 4 high profile cases that happened in Spain.
- Break-in with a knife, owner shoots the burglar as he was charging him knife in hand. Dead burglar, no problem.
- Two thugs were holding and beating the owner of a nightclub to get the night's cash. Brother (a competitive pistol shooter) shot one in the head, other in the chest. Both dead, no problem.
- Bother-in-law of a famous family in the jewelry business chases a burglar to the street and shoots him in the back. Gets suspended prison sentence because of "insurmountable fear". I'm sure lawyer quality played a part there, should have gotten off worse.
- Off-duty police officer has a road rage episode and shoots another driver twice in the head after his and other car bumped on the highway. Tried to push self defence because the other car "crashed deliberately onto him". Still pending, but this one is likely to get some time.
Peregrine wrote: , that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that". The only way to have a situation where you don't have to worry about the law is to assume that any level of force is justified in self defense once a credible threat of violence is presented.
That's a BS representation of British law Peregrine. In these cases people are only convicted if their actions are found to be "grossly disproportionate" to the situation.
As Smacks says, there is a lot of leeway regards what is proportional force (my experience is a government provided legal brief at least once a year, and often more, for the last 17 years designed to cover this exact topic).
Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.
I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough
I was so close to getting into the FA business a couple weeks ago...then I was sadly reminded that I'm still trying to cobble together a down payment for a house
But primarily I was just referring to the legal requirements, the market prices for such things obviously are another level of issue altogether
Smacks wrote: There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.
Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified.
I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...
Vaktathi wrote: it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.
And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".
It means that the gun is warranted, not that you *must* use a gun, but it's assumed that you're in active danger and that it's not practical nor realistic to expect someone to know exactly what the intentions of someone else are and that the potential for violence is already high, meaning use of a firearm is not inappropriate.
You can't shoot someone in the back running away, you can't shoot people someone just to protect property (e.g. if they're breaking windows on your car in the driveway), you can't set traps or ambush people, you can't shoot someone who has surrendered or is incapacitated or has clearly indicated they are attempting to disengage or anything like that. And proportionality is taken into account, if a burly 35 year old dude shoots a 12 year old girl trying to slap him, that dude is going to prison for murder, if that 12 year old girl manages to get a firearm and that 35 year old burly dude is trying to swing a closed fist at her head she won't be punished for pulling that trigger. But there's a wide leeway given in regards to proportionality, if you're coming at me with the intent to get into a physical brawl, that can turn lethal into a couple seconds even if that isn't the intent, and to expect people to just run away or keep an array of different self defense tools available that they select by first judging the threat level in the midst of the situation, or that alternate tools are as effective in stopping threats, is not reasonable.
Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.
There probably are, but that's also thousands out of hundreds of millions, and we're talking about this case because it's exceptional and shocking and offensive. donkey-caves exist everywhere.
Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.
Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.
That's the hope anyways.
Some posters might argue thats the person you least want to test on legal shooting...
Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.
I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough
I was so close to getting into the FA business a couple weeks ago...then I was sadly reminded that I'm still trying to cobble together a down payment for a house
But primarily I was just referring to the legal requirements, the market prices for such things obviously are another level of issue altogether
Why is it that prices are so inflated? Because the US of A decided the 2nd amendment did not apply to full auto guns post-86.
Just like it may one day decide on mag capacity or caliber.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.
That's the hope anyways.
There's a difference between knowing the law, and obeying the law. There are plenty of violent criminals who know their actions are illegal but do it anyway because they don't care about the law. And some of them even carry badges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: That's a BS representation of British law Peregrine. In these cases people are only convicted if their actions are found to be "grossly disproportionate" to the situation.
As Smacks says, there is a lot of leeway regards what is proportional force (my experience is a government provided legal brief at least once a year, and often more, for the last 17 years designed to cover this exact topic).
Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.
Unless your wife employs the "he needed killin your honor" defense of course. My wife tells me the judge has to release the wife after that.
EDIT: This is what I don't see what they are on about. The standard is generally the same. Thats why Captain Old Fart is going down hard for this, because he doesn't meet the test to reasonable persons absent other evidence.
skyth wrote: I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.
Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.
I actually have a problem with this thought process. Ask yourself how many fist fights have you been involved in? Realize that you could have died from a single punch to the wrong spot in anyone of them.
Typically fights between kids aren't meant to go down to serious harm, but between adults that can be another story. Even if you arent killed by a blow, you might be rendered unable to fight back, then who knows what will happen.
If someone has attacked you, your first immediate concern should be for yourself, not the well-being of the person attacking you. If you have to kill in order to prevent harm being done to you by an attacker, so be it.
It might be noble to think that during the mad seconds of a fight you can go through several hypothetical options to disarm an attacker, however I think unless you are trained in it, its very likely that thought process will only bring yourself more harm.
Gun culture has nothing to do with it. If all you have is a baseball bat, use it.
This is why full auto wiener dogs are important. If attacked you don't have to do anything. They will immediately sense their prey and then its "NO NO NOT THE FACE!" time.
Peregrine wrote: Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.
I couldn't say without having knowledge of US law. UK law uses two important words - "proprtionate" and "reasonable". I assume US uses something very similar. As for culture that may come down to the legal possession of weaponry and what effect this has upon the escalation to violence. Obviously in the UK weaponry is not allowed. That doesn't stop people causing injury and death with their hands but it does give the impression that the temptation to escalate is reduced (I emphasise impression as I've never researched the violent crime numbers between the two countries).
Peregrine wrote: Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.
I couldn't say without having knowledge of US law. UK law uses two important words - "proprtionate" and "reasonable". I assume US uses something very similar.
I didn't want to retype it but in general
Ouze wrote: In the US, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. All of these concepts vary by state, some being looser and some being tighter, but this is the most common phrasing.
Then, there are 3 different scenarios governing use of force across the US.
Duty to retreat: In some states, you are required to attempt to escape. If a home invader breaks into your house, you must attempt to flee your home, and can only use deadly force if you cannot escape. If a guy breaks in and chases you with a knife, in your house, and you shoot him without trying to escape the house, you can be prosecuted.
Castle doctrine: In other states, you have a duty to retreat, but it doesn't apply to your home - you do not have to attempt to flee your home before employing deadly force, again using the same reasonable/imminent criteria. Castle doctrine states commonly extend to your vehicle as well when you're in it. If a guy breaks into your house you have a strong defense against prosecution, if you're being carjacked you can defend yourself, if you see someone stealing your car and you shoot them - you're gonna go to jail. Make sense?
Stand your ground: In SYG states, you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you legally have the right to be. It's not a license to kill, you can't go into your neighbors house and decide to shoot him because "you felt scared". It simply means that if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you don't have to attempt to flee if you have the right to be where you are. To be honest I think this is the most reasonable version of a self-defense law.
I had seen that previous post Ouze. So far as I am aware we have nothing like those other laws over here, they tend to complicate matters - either your use of force is reasonable or it is not, there's no need to confuse the matter further. This may be where the difference between use of force laws are the greatest between the two sides of the Atlantic.
My understanding is that we have one exception for being in your own house and that is that the use of force goes from being allowed so long as it is not disproportionate to so long as it is not grossly disproportionate. Don't ask me what the difference is. I have a suspicion but couldn't give you a definition.
Well, we have similar laws here. Functionally whenever self-defense no longer becomes so, really. There was a case where there had been some break-ins and so a guy left his garage door open with a purse in plan view, and then shot an exchange student who came into the garage - he went to jail. Another where a guy caught 2 teenagers breaking into his house, and then after shooting them executed one who was still alive. Also went to jail. Just 2 examples offhand but I think it's more alike than not.
Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.
Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.
Prestor Jon wrote: Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.
Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.
Actually Texas is very expansive. Basically theft of property where stopping the theft can't occur in another fashion. I am actually not onside with this personally, and its a matter of some interpretation. You shoot someone over a radio and you're going to get prosecuted. Shooting car thieves at night, I'm just fine with though.
Prestor Jon wrote: Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.
Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.
Actually Texas is very expansive. Basically theft of property where stopping the theft can't occur in another fashion. I am actually not onside with this personally, and its a matter of some interpretation. You shoot someone over a radio and you're going to get prosecuted. Shooting car thieves at night, I'm just fine with though.
What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.
What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.
1. Legally its perfectly legal. morally, fine by me too. 2. I just assume anyone messing with my car is in fact a cat person, and thus have no souls.
And that right there is the difference in culture we've been discussing.
This is true. In the US, its not culturally acceptable to be without a car, unless you're a Yankee from NYC of course. Then you have orange hair and say "bigly" a lot.
In Texas this developed from the horse / long distance / arid conditions here, where stealing someone's horse was effectively a death sentence. For many years it was considered a capital crime here.
Are there more states besides Florida moving to change the law to require the prosecutor to prove that SYG was not a factor rather than requiring defendants to prove that they acted appropriately under SYG?
Prestor Jon wrote: What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.
I did some research on this once and AFAIK Texas might be the only state that permits you to use lethal force not only to defend property, but to defend someone else's property. That's how far Texas goes.
Frazzled is right not to agree with it, it's much too far. But it's an outlier.
Prestor Jon wrote: What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.
I did some research on this once and AFAIK Texas might be the only state that permits you to use lethal force not only to defend property, but to defend someone else's property. That's how far Texas goes.
Frazzled is right not to agree with it, it's much too far. But it's an outlier.
I wonder whether there have been any cases of someone shooting their neighbour by mistaking them for somebody trying to steal their neighbours car?
Prestor Jon wrote: What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.
I did some research on this once and AFAIK Texas might be the only state that permits you to use lethal force not only to defend property, but to defend someone else's property. That's how far Texas goes.
Frazzled is right not to agree with it, it's much too far. But it's an outlier.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Texas is alone in that regard and I agree that lethal force isn't warranted for the prevention of property crimes and shouldn't be given legal protection. IIRC, those laws were a product of the over reaction to the controversy over the Joe Horn shooting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Near me, and I'll try to find a link, a homeowner caught a guy in his house, and the burglar ran from him down the hallway, towards his kids room. Homeowner dropped him in the hallway with 2 to the back, and it was considered self defense by the police. On one hand, I completely agree with this decision, because the bad guy could have taken the kid hostage, or worse if he got desperate. Someone got too close to my kid's rooms while breaking in, I'd slot the guy and sleep like a kitten about it. Logically though, the guy's back was turned, and he was trying to flee. He didn't know it was a kids bedroom at the end of the hall. Food for thought.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Near me, and I'll try to find a link, a homeowner caught a guy in his house, and the burglar ran from him down the hallway, towards his kids room. Homeowner dropped him in the hallway with 2 to the back, and it was considered self defense by the police. On one hand, I completely agree with this decision, because the bad guy could have taken the kid hostage, or worse if he got desperate. Someone got too close to my kid's rooms while breaking in, I'd slot the guy and sleep like a kitten about it. Logically though, the guy's back was turned, and he was trying to flee. He didn't know it was a kids bedroom at the end of the hall. Food for thought.
In this case its a simple decision, be tried by 12, or have your kids carried by 6. In this case one who is vehemently against violence could easily argue it was the wrong decision, where those who would want to defend their family through lethal means would applaud. I for one don't think I would have waited for him to turn his back just to be sure, but thats just me. You don't come up stairs while we are home and expect to be allowed to continue to breed.
Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
people breaking and entering arent usually the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, be they just stupid, suffering from mental problems, or other such things, and even intelligent and wise people do absolutely stupid and insane things under stress and panic all the time.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping. If there's somebody in your house and you have kids and family to protect you do it without question, not ask them to sit down over tea while they make small talk and tell you all about why they are in your house.
There's also cases where children shoot themselves, each other or their parents with guns.
Looking at it from the epidemiological angle, the first question is which type of event causes more woundings/deaths per 100,000 per year. The second question would be, if it turned out there are more accidental shootings by family members than by breakers-in, would suppression of guns -- such as requiring them to be locked in safes -- lead to a greater amount of harm to chlldren from targetted break-ins than the reduction from not leaving the guns lying around.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
Are you serious? Grab the kid and you've subdued to the whole family and can do what you want.
You say burglar, it could be a burglar. It could a home invader. It could be a stalker. It could be this generation's Ted Bundy.
I've got to agree with Frazz et. al. on this one. Sure, the burglar didn't know that he was heading towards a kid, but what if he realized? His mere presence in someone's home already means that he's ignoring laws.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
To add on to what everyone else said, that is a naive and extremely dangerous thought process. No one breaks in to your home to give you stuff, they are trying to take your stuff, or hurt you. Its not like you won the lottery and at 0200 they decided to come hand you your prize.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would a burglar take a child hostage? That would just make things worse for them for no reason. The best thing they can do is attempt to escape. Taking a hostage makes absolutely no sense.
It's no ones responsibility to consider the intent or nonsensical nature of any individual breaking into their house. Most people would rather not shoot someone in their house - esp if it looks like they are just trying to get away. Understanding that this can be a life or death situation I always will side with a homeowner in this situation regardless of the intruders intent or apparent intent. It's also not a situation that people are really prepared for - being awoken in the middle of the night and scared to death. How rational can you expect anyone to be in that situation?
Kilkrazy wrote: It is interesting that you don't give a gak about a criminal behaviour issue that apparently concerns you deeply.
I don't think that was the point. His question was valid. Would knowing the statistics in the aformentioned scenario change your actions? Would you risk it?
Kilkrazy wrote: It is interesting that you don't give a gak about a criminal behaviour issue that apparently concerns you deeply.
It is interesting that your passive aggressive attacks on those who advocate for 2nd amendment rights is okay for a Mod to engage in.
I encourage you to read what I actually typed. I asked if knowing the stats changes your actions WHILE an incident is going on, and stated that it would not change mine.
In no way does that mean I don't care about criminal behavior issues in the macro. It does mean that regardless of the 1 in a zillion odds you may place on the intruder in my house perhaps harming my child, I'm not taking the chance. Legally I am not obliged to, and morally I have a duty to protect my kid.
My first thought upon seeing a stranger in my home and heading for my kids' room is definitely to research crime statistics to see how likely it is that he will do something to my kids....
Bloody hell, some of the nonsense here is incredible. People are entirely happy to let home invaders do what they want in their house because "statistically" they are unlikely to hurt them or their kids? Amazing...
Kilkrazy wrote: It is interesting that you don't give a gak about a criminal behaviour issue that apparently concerns you deeply.
I don't think that was the point. His question was valid. Would knowing the statistics in the aformentioned scenario change your actions? Would you risk it?
The chance of a burglar trying to kidnap my daughter is vanishingly small. As such, it's impossible to realistically imagine the situation and my possible reactions to it.
If such events are common in the USA, then I can see why people would be highly concerned about it. Hence my question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We were talking about burglars, which actually are fairly common in the UK, though more common in Spain for some reason.
How many home invasions are there per year in the USA?
An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).
These estimates of burglary are based on a revised definition
of burglary from the standard classification in the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically, burglary is
classified as a property crime except when someone is home
during the burglary and a household member is attacked or
threatened. When someone is home during a burglary and
experiences violence, NCVS classification rules categorize the
victimization as a personal (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated and simple assault) rather than a property crime
(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft). In this
report, the definition of household burglary includes
burglaries in which a household member was a victim of a
violent crime (see Methodology).
Kilkrazy wrote: It is interesting that you don't give a gak about a criminal behaviour issue that apparently concerns you deeply.
I don't think that was the point. His question was valid. Would knowing the statistics in the aformentioned scenario change your actions? Would you risk it?
The chance of a burglar trying to kidnap my daughter is vanishingly small. As such, it's impossible to realistically imagine the situation and my possible reactions to it.
If such events are common in the USA, then I can see why people would be highly concerned about it. Hence my question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We were talking about burglars, which actually are fairly common in the UK, though more common in Spain for some reason.
How many home invasions are there per year in the USA?
The person actively committing a violent crime will never get the benefit of the doubt from me. I already know an intruder has ill intent because that person already broke into my home an act that already satisfied the reasonableness justification for me to perceive an imminent threat of bodily harm.
An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary. In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member experienced some form of violent victimization
.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
Simple assault (15% or 155,400) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred.
Robbery (7% 72,520) and rape (3% 31,080) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.
Offenders were known to their victims in 65% or 2,405,000 of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% 8,702 of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
Serious injury accounted for 9% or 6, 527 people and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary
Kilkrazy wrote: It is interesting that you don't give a gak about a criminal behaviour issue that apparently concerns you deeply.
I don't think that was the point. His question was valid. Would knowing the statistics in the aformentioned scenario change your actions? Would you risk it?
The chance of a burglar trying to kidnap my daughter is vanishingly small. As such, it's impossible to realistically imagine the situation and my possible reactions to it.
If such events are common in the USA, then I can see why people would be highly concerned about it. Hence my question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We were talking about burglars, which actually are fairly common in the UK, though more common in Spain for some reason.
How many home invasions are there per year in the USA?
It's hard to say. There were a string of them in San Francisco, back when we lived in San Francisco, and the perpetrators indeed went after the daughters. There are enough high profile invasions reported in the news that end with maiming, crippling or death that the extremely negative outcomes overpower the low numerical risk in most people's minds, like lottery tickets if the prize was watching your family die horribly and your odds of winning were a lot higher than the actual lottery.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Well, it's not like that never happens. I mean, statistically never, sure, but actually never? No. It does, very very rarely, happen.
If I lived in an area where I felt I needed a gun in case a Bad Guy (tm) might break in and murder me or my family, I'd fething leave. I don't need that kind of stress in my life.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.
In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.
In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.
Those don't stop the determined....
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Locked gates prevent vehicles approaching within about 300 meters (and you've already trespassed to get to those gates), 5 dogs in the house, 4 of which are decent sized (one is a little rat dog), and have a 100m lane with BIG dirt berm backstop I use for target practice, and I shoot often.
But that is beside your point. Not everyone can afford the measures you suggest, and even when in place, they don't always work. Nothing always works.
My point, which your suggestion does not address, is that those who are looking to target kids do not break into random houses to do so. Any mitigating security measures may have the would be gak bag target someone else, but there will always be a someone else.
And of course those security measures tend to give other types of gak bag reason to move to an easier target as well, which is always a good thing. But again, there IS always an easier target. In other cases there are folks who for a variety of reasons will attempt to overcome existing security measures.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.
In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.
Also want to know how long it takes to kick open a door with multiple locks? Less time than it took to read this sentence. hey if she wouldn't have worn that short skirt eh?
Yeah, even with a steel frame, unless it is installed with intent to withstand breaching efforts, kicking/ramming the door and frame inward is generally not too hard, regardless of number of locks. Most folks don't bother with steel frames anyways as they get expensive fast. Most 'good' deadbolts if kicked right will smash the strike plate/sleeve right out of the wood frame.
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.
Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.
At least for myself, I am going to assume that anyone I catch in my house during a burglary is an immediate mortal threat and will respond accordingly. I will certainly give them the opportunity to surrender and lay down face down on the floor, but they would be doing so at a very flinchy 3 pounds of trigger pressure. I don't consider myself to in any way be a rambo type person, and don't expect such a thing would ever happen, and I hope it never does. My house was burgled once already so statistically I think I am in the clear now
Spoiler:
statistics do not work that way!
but I think lethal force during an interrupted home invasion is pretty reasonable. Of course, I'm much more worried about a fire, which is why I have a fire extinguisher in 2 places in my home, and have smoke detectors up.
stanman wrote: There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.
Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.
Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.
He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.
In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.
Those don't stop the determined....
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
It's also a lot cheaper to get a good dog and a gun then it is to try to transform your home into an unassailable fortress. We had a house in our neighborhood get broken into last year and the homeowners had a security system and taken basic precautions but the thieves broke into the car in the driveway and used the garage door opener to open the garage door and walked right into the house. The residents weren't home so thankfully nobody got hurt.
I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.
Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.
Depends on the neighborhood. There's a whole lot of craziness that could happen on the front porch of the house down the street from me or elsewhere in the neighborhood in the middle of the night that likely wouldn't wake up the neighbors. Kicking a door doesn't make that much noise and porch lights likely won't be noticed b sleeping neighbors. There's a lot of shady stuff that can happen during the day too as many people are away at work. For the past few summers my wife has had to call the county sheriff to complain about people using their tree trimming/yardwork "business" as an excuse to trawl through neighborhoods and walk around people's houses in a suspicious manner.
Ouze wrote: I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.
Heh... I've heard stories that some burglars are ballsy enough to bring ground beef to bribe the pups...
Moral of the story, if the burglar is determined, almost nothing will stop 'em.
Ouze wrote: I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.
Yeah I don't have a lot of confidence in either of our dogs attacking a burglar, although he Vizsla might, but I know they'll bark enough to wake me up and that's good enough.
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.
Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.
Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.
Why do you blame the victim?
I'm not blaming any victim any more than anyone saying that a gun can keep you safe.
To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.
Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.
Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.
Why do you blame the victim?
I'm not blaming any victim any more than anyone saying that a gun can keep you safe.
We're not. You keep you safe. A firearm is just a tool.
Excellent, although he can still argue self defense I believe.
SYG was never going to prevent the ex cop from going to trial. He probably will try to argue self defense but I think it will be difficult to find eyewitnesses and other evidence that would support the perception of the guy who was texting being an imminent threat of bodily harm based on some popcorn.
The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
In a highly publicized move, the Florida Legislature enacted in 2005 what has been popularly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law, as codified in Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:
(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not create a new type of affirmative defense. The principle that a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm has been the law in Florida for well over a century. See Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 163-164 (Fla. 1892). Rather than creating a new defense, “Stand Your Ground” broadens the scope of a self-defense claim by establishing a general “no duty to retreat” rule.
Prior to the enactment of the statute, a person could not use deadly force in self-defense without first using every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger, including retreat. See Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999); State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982). As stated in earlier appellate court decisions, a combatant had to “retreat to the wall” before using deadly force. See Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). This former “duty to retreat” derived from the common law, rather than from statute.
If abolishing the common law duty of retreat for cases involving the use of deadly force was not enough, “Stand Your Ground” goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Good, let there be a trial, and let him be an example of how and when deadly force should be applied. He literally sounds like someone who was just waiting on a reason to see what bullets do to a body. Hope he got a good look, because shivs are nastier, and so is butt rape.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Near me, and I'll try to find a link, a homeowner caught a guy in his house, and the burglar ran from him down the hallway, towards his kids room. Homeowner dropped him in the hallway with 2 to the back, and it was considered self defense by the police. On one hand, I completely agree with this decision, because the bad guy could have taken the kid hostage, or worse if he got desperate. Someone got too close to my kid's rooms while breaking in, I'd slot the guy and sleep like a kitten about it. Logically though, the guy's back was turned, and he was trying to flee. He didn't know it was a kids bedroom at the end of the hall. Food for thought.
Well, I put the blame on the guy breaking into the house.
Honestly, its 2017. We know breaking into houses is wrong. We also know it can be dangerous with the number of weapons in homes. If you make the decision to break into someone's home, you are risking death, pure and simple.
And I will agree, any movement to a kids bedroom would get a clip emptied on him. I just can't see how anyone can consider the burgler's actions, and feel justified in defending him.
Don't break into houses, and you wont get shot. If everyone followed this, there would be far less break-ins.
I would add one thing. if the burglar was in a hallway of the house and the homeowner is standing at one end pointing a pistol at him, I would reasonably assume that he's trying to get away from the pistol, not looking for a kids bedroom.
While the statement that the burglar shouldn't be there is 100% true, I, if a juror, would need convincing that such a shooting was necessary.
But then Bane has only provided a synopsis I can only draw a conclusion from what is available.
If I was a juror, and I was judging a man who killed a burglar who was in this man's house, while his kids were there, I wouldnt need to hear another word. The burglar got what he deserved.
I dont understand how this is even debatable. No wonder there are so many break-ins. These people are empowered to do it.
I have no sympathy for a guy getting shot while breaking into another person's home. Add kids to that scenario, and I am baffled there is even a discussion.
Frazzled wrote: Also want to know how long it takes to kick open a door with multiple locks? Less time than it took to read this sentence.
In the US maybe, what with doors usually opening into the house for some reason (law requiring it so rescue personnel and police can get in quickly was it?). Anyone kicking my front door isn't going to get anything except a broken foot.
As a bonus there's no way a burglar can claim he wandered in by accident or the door just fell off it's hinges as he walked past. :-)
KTG17 wrote: If I was a juror, and I was judging a man who killed a burglar who was in this man's house, while his kids were there, I wouldnt need to hear another word. The burglar got what he deserved.
I dont understand how this is even debatable. No wonder there are so many break-ins. These people are empowered to do it.
I have no sympathy for a guy getting shot while breaking into another person's home. Add kids to that scenario, and I am baffled there is even a discussion.
I think there is a discussion because he was shot in the back. Look at it this way, somebody jumps you in an alley, you pull a gun and the mugger turns and flees and you put two in his back. Is that self defense, manslaughter or murder?
You have far greater leeway defending your home than you actually have defending yourself on the street. As a matter of fact, if you shoot someone on your front lawn, drag his body into your house.
Honestly, you have the right and moral obligation to defend your family. A stranger in the hallway heading towards yourk kids room? Don't think about it a second longer.
The blame is on the burglar.
The world is just filled with too many crazy people to hope that everyone has the best intentions. The fact that he is even in your home tells you he doesn't. Don't even risk it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Especially if you have the possibility of choosing prison, or a dead child. I think every parent here is going to choose the same answer.
Prestor Jon wrote: SYG was never going to prevent the ex cop from going to trial. He probably will try to argue self defense but I think it will be difficult to find eyewitnesses and other evidence that would support the perception of the guy who was texting being an imminent threat of bodily harm based on some popcorn.
If anything, I think his attempt to pull SYG might have hurt him. His best argument was that the victim threw his phone (which is a pretty weak justification in my book but I digress), and now you have witness testimony saying it didn't happen, and a judge saying on the record the shiny object that the enhanced video shows is likely the a reflection off the defendant's shoe.
Kilkrazy wrote:There's also cases where children shoot themselves, each other or their parents with guns.
Looking at it from the epidemiological angle, the first question is which type of event causes more woundings/deaths per 100,000 per year. The second question would be, if it turned out there are more accidental shootings by family members than by breakers-in, would suppression of guns -- such as requiring them to be locked in safes -- lead to a greater amount of harm to chlldren from targetted break-ins than the reduction from not leaving the guns lying around.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
My point isn't that burglars should not be shot at. My point is that if the statistical chance of you or your children getting shot by accident by your own or your neighbour's gun is greater than the chance of getting shot by a burglar, then obviously you would be safer not to have a gun. That is science not gut feelings, though.
In the putative case mentioned above, of shooting a fleeing burglar in the back, it has already occurred and been tried in the UK. The homeowner and shooter got convicted of murder, because he deliberately killed someone and it was not in self defence since they clearly were running away.
However, to be fair to the policeman in the Florida case, he may well have felt that since he was armed with a gun, the person he shot might well have been too, and since the argument was rapidly escalatiing it was a matter of pre-emptive self-defence.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point isn't that burglars should not be shot at. My point is that if the statistical chance of you or your children getting shot by accident by your own or your neighbour's gun is greater than the chance of getting shot by a burglar, then obviously you would be safer not to have a gun. That is science not gut feelings, though.
If the gist of this was you want someone to concede that having a firearm in your home makes you statistically less safe, then I would agree with that.
I don't know if the statistics support one side or the other of the concept, and I don't think a lot of people do think about these things statistically anyway. You probably are an exception, and we don't know if you are right.
Yeah, I forgot where I was posting when I asked why a burglar would risk taking a child hostage and causing a manhunt/Amber alert instead of just fleeing. The chances of getting away are so much better!
I forgot this is America where we all live in a movie and we are secretly Liam Neeson.....
Lots of burglars are meth heads. Meth heads tend to be poor of judgement and quick to violence. They are not going to think things through. It is ridiculous to believe that the common household burglar is some rational, planning-ahead Ocean's 11 type rather than someone who has already failed several important risk assessments and character tests I leading up to this moment.
You got a source on lots of burglars being meth heads? Even meth heads understand that messing with children will land you in a whole heap of trouble, outside of prison and inside. I'm not saying it hasn't or it couldn't, I am saying happens a lot less than you are letting on.
Kilkrazy wrote:There's also cases where children shoot themselves, each other or their parents with guns.
Looking at it from the epidemiological angle, the first question is which type of event causes more woundings/deaths per 100,000 per year. The second question would be, if it turned out there are more accidental shootings by family members than by breakers-in, would suppression of guns -- such as requiring them to be locked in safes -- lead to a greater amount of harm to chlldren from targetted break-ins than the reduction from not leaving the guns lying around.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
In fact, guns kept in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone known to the family than to be used to kill in self-defense.
These articles do fail to point out a number of things. For starters, they didn't talk about the correlation of location, suicide, and mental health services. Rural areas have more guns, and fewer options for mental health (also more people that shun doctors and less that can afford them). These people are more likely to kill themselves by any means, but they also have guns. Kind-of throws that statistic for a little curve once that variable is accounted for. Also, the point of a home defense weapon is not to kill the intruder. It's to protect the home owner. Mild wounding, hitting nothing but air (anyone else seen Boys In the Hood?), and simply pointing and making them run are all "successes" that aren't counted.
Another thing to remember is that many of the deaths of residents are clustered into specific demographics, not evenly spread out. There are a few simple rules you can follow to make having guns the better option. The big rules: Don't have a history of mental illness. Don't be involved in organized crime. Don't have a chemical dependency. Own your guns legally. Those four things make the safety issue a wash.
Of course there are other things you can do. Marital status, if you have children, geographical location, local crime rates, income, education level, gender, and even race (somehow), and the types of weapons owned effect these statistics.
So, if you are a well educated single white woman with no kids living by yourself while having good mental health, no criminal record, and don't do drugs while having an AR-15 in the closet, the chances of that hurting anyone is pretty nonexistent. Now, if you are an unemployed high school dropout that hears voices in their head and does a little meth dealing on the side to support your 3 kids, your Glock 19 might just kill someone.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Near me, and I'll try to find a link, a homeowner caught a guy in his house, and the burglar ran from him down the hallway, towards his kids room. Homeowner dropped him in the hallway with 2 to the back, and it was considered self defense by the police. On one hand, I completely agree with this decision, because the bad guy could have taken the kid hostage, or worse if he got desperate. Someone got too close to my kid's rooms while breaking in, I'd slot the guy and sleep like a kitten about it. Logically though, the guy's back was turned, and he was trying to flee. He didn't know it was a kids bedroom at the end of the hall. Food for thought.
Well, I put the blame on the guy breaking into the house.
Honestly, its 2017. We know breaking into houses is wrong. We also know it can be dangerous with the number of weapons in homes. If you make the decision to break into someone's home, you are risking death, pure and simple.
And I will agree, any movement to a kids bedroom would get a clip emptied on him. I just can't see how anyone can consider the burgler's actions, and feel justified in defending him.
Don't break into houses, and you wont get shot. If everyone followed this, there would be far less break-ins.
2 thoughts; 1. Why not shoot him in the legs (i.e. to eliminate the threat without thd killing) and 2. Is it a good idea to fire in the direction of your kids bedroom if you know they are in there? Presumably you're more likely to injure your child with a stray shot than the man running away is?
If you're going to shoot someone you shoot them in the torso because it is the easiest target to hit and more likely to incapacitate them quickly. There is a good logic in that.
The counter-argument is that European police are pretty successful at shooting people in the legs and not killing them, compared to US police.
The counter to that is that US police are trained to shoot you dead if they shoot at you, because they have to assume you have got a gun and will shoot back. You will note that the small number of British police who carry guns, the specially trained armed response units, also have a high rate of shooting people dead in shooting incidents, because they are trained for gun combat situations that very rarely occur in the UK and need to be dealt with smartly when they arise. (Sadly, this has led to various incidents of innocent, unarmed people being shot dead by the armed response by mistake.)
The other counter is that lots of Americans with guns don't have good training at conflict situations and shooting at people, because there is no nationwide requirement to have this kind of training before you get a licence for a gun, so they are not trained to and probably aren't going to be accurate at shooting at someone's legs.
As for shooting in the direction of the people you are trying to defend from being shot at, it does seem a bit strange, but probably Americans who have had training in conflicts and shooting feel they are going to be accurate enough to hit the target they are aiming at, because they will aim at the torso. The ones who haven't had the training may panic and shoot anyway.
Herzlos wrote: Why not shoot him in the legs (i.e. to eliminate the threat without thd killing)
This line is often used by people who haven't had firearm training. There's a number of reasons this is unrealistic, but to fully explain would be dragging the conversation further off topic. Please accept that this is not a viable suggestion.
There's already links on this thread to the FBI statistics that show that over 1 million homes get broken into while occupied and over a quarter of a million of those people are victimized by the burglar each year while in contrast only 500-600 people die of accidental shootings each year. Yes, having a gun in the home increases the danger of getting shot just like having a pool increases the danger of drowning. However, the FBI stats also show that over 2/3rds of annual gun deaths are suicides, if you get shot by the gun in your home the person most likely to be pulling the trigger is yourself. In either case if we're going to go by the statistics it's extremely unlikely that anybody will get shot in your home at all whether or not that very slim chance is enough to discourage somebody from owning a gun is of course a matter of personal preference.
Well, there's 18 pages of filth on this subject, and I saw on the news that the judge denied his "stand your ground" bull. I hope all of his remaining money and assets are provided to the family he destroyed, and he spends the rest of his pathetic life in prison, in the dankest cell they have.
Wow, so could I infer that because theres filth on these pages, then the people writing them are filthy? No, that makes no sense. Kind of a filthy thing to say IMO.
(see what I did there?)
timetowaste85 wrote: Well, there's 18 pages of filth on this subject, and I saw on the news that the judge denied his "stand your ground" bull. I hope all of his remaining money and assets are provided to the family he destroyed, and he spends the rest of his pathetic life in prison, in the dankest cell they have.
You do know that now he gets a trial, right? Or do you think folks you don't like are not entitled those old antiquated processes? Better to just strip them of all property, rights, and their freedom without wasting resources on stupid stuff like trials.
2 thoughts; 1. Why not shoot him in the legs (i.e. to eliminate the threat without thd killing) and 2. Is it a good idea to fire in the direction of your kids bedroom if you know they are in there? Presumably you're more likely to injure your child with a stray shot than the man running away is?
Shoot for the legs? Why? Who says he couldn't shoot back? Besides, this falls back on the arguement concerning the well being for the burglar, for which I wouldn't care.
And I don't see many US cops shooting for the legs either. There is a reason for that.
KTG17 wrote: And I don't see many US cops shooting for the legs either. There is a reason for that.
Yes, the aforementioned chance that the burglar could also be armed (not an unreasonable assumption in the US) and might shoot back. And he's moving toward's a kid's bedroom, whether because he knows it and wants a hostage or just tries to flee - I can see how that would be the kind of reason to shoot a jury would agree on as reasonable. It's easy (for me too) to think it unreasonable when I live somewhere these sorts of things just don't happen.
Still, there are some sorts of things that do strike me as a bit unfair even if one is a criminal. Like states where so-called "felony death" in connection with a crime is counted as the responsibility of the criminal. House owner shoots one burglar and the others, captured alive, are slapped with murder charges because their crime companion is dead. HUH? They didn't kill him, and even the house owner might not have tried that hard to actually hit, just scare them away...
timetowaste85 wrote: Well, there's 18 pages of filth on this subject, and I saw on the news that the judge denied his "stand your ground" bull. I hope all of his remaining money and assets are provided to the family he destroyed, and he spends the rest of his pathetic life in prison, in the dankest cell they have.
You do know that now he gets a trial, right? Or do you think folks you don't like are not entitled those old antiquated processes? Better to just strip them of all property, rights, and their freedom without wasting resources on stupid stuff like trials.
If he goes before a judge, I'm pretty sure that's at least some form of trial. I wasn't aware he needed another one after stealing a life with tons of witnesses to the event and a judge declaring his "reasoning" to be crap. Oh well, you'll always get some people saying he needs more of a chance.
And as for the "filth" thing to the previous user...not every single post is filth, just that there are 18 pages and that the first few contained absolute crap arguing for his actions, and I didn't wanna wade through the junk for the treasure posts. That doesn't make every poster filthy either. But...ya know...good interpretation. Yeah...not really.
KTG17 wrote: And I don't see many US cops shooting for the legs either. There is a reason for that.
Yes, the aforementioned chance that the burglar could also be armed (not an unreasonable assumption in the US) and might shoot back. And he's moving toward's a kid's bedroom, whether because he knows it and wants a hostage or just tries to flee - I can see how that would be the kind of reason to shoot a jury would agree on as reasonable. It's easy (for me too) to think it unreasonable when I live somewhere these sorts of things just don't happen.
Still, there are some sorts of things that do strike me as a bit unfair even if one is a criminal. Like states where so-called "felony death" in connection with a crime is counted as the responsibility of the criminal. House owner shoots one burglar and the others, captured alive, are slapped with murder charges because their crime companion is dead. HUH? They didn't kill him, and even the house owner might not have tried that hard to actually hit, just scare them away...
I would agree with this mostly, and have seen it used in several instances that largely appeared to just be deflections from police mistakes (one in San Diego comes to mind where a chasing deputy hit a pedestrian and they charged the suspect for the cop hitting the woman).
timetowaste85 wrote: Well, there's 18 pages of filth on this subject, and I saw on the news that the judge denied his "stand your ground" bull. I hope all of his remaining money and assets are provided to the family he destroyed, and he spends the rest of his pathetic life in prison, in the dankest cell they have.
You do know that now he gets a trial, right? Or do you think folks you don't like are not entitled those old antiquated processes? Better to just strip them of all property, rights, and their freedom without wasting resources on stupid stuff like trials.
If he goes before a judge, I'm pretty sure that's at least some form of trial. I wasn't aware he needed another one after stealing a life with tons of witnesses to the event and a judge declaring his "reasoning" to be crap. Oh well, you'll always get some people saying he needs more of a chance.
And as for the "filth" thing to the previous user...not every single post is filth, just that there are 18 pages and that the first few contained absolute crap arguing for his actions, and I didn't wanna wade through the junk for the treasure posts. That doesn't make every poster filthy either. But...ya know...good interpretation. Yeah...not really.
You may want to do even a rudimentary google search if the links in this topic are not enough for you to understand this case and the resulting legal process. Or, just continue being rude and ignorant,no skin off my back.
timetowaste85 wrote: Well, there's 18 pages of filth on this subject, and I saw on the news that the judge denied his "stand your ground" bull. I hope all of his remaining money and assets are provided to the family he destroyed, and he spends the rest of his pathetic life in prison, in the dankest cell they have.
You do know that now he gets a trial, right? Or do you think folks you don't like are not entitled those old antiquated processes? Better to just strip them of all property, rights, and their freedom without wasting resources on stupid stuff like trials.
If he goes before a judge, I'm pretty sure that's at least some form of trial. I wasn't aware he needed another one after stealing a life with tons of witnesses to the event and a judge declaring his "reasoning" to be crap. Oh well, you'll always get some people saying he needs more of a chance.
And as for the "filth" thing to the previous user...not every single post is filth, just that there are 18 pages and that the first few contained absolute crap arguing for his actions, and I didn't wanna wade through the junk for the treasure posts. That doesn't make every poster filthy either. But...ya know...good interpretation. Yeah...not really.
You may want to do even a rudimentary google search if the links in this topic are not enough for you to understand this case and the resulting legal process. Or, just continue being rude and ignorant,no skin off my back.
Nope. I understand it perfectly fine and I'm entitled to my opinion. If you've seen my posts in other gun threads, I generally support cops and their need for self defense. This wasn't that. This was a guy who got fed up, took drastic action, then tried to backpedal and claim it was self defense. The news station I was watching before work did a pretty good sum up of events. And discussed the judge throwing out his actions as "stand your ground". So yes...I happily say to let this foul human excrement suffer for destroying a family.
Dreadwinter wrote: Because they know exactly where your kids room is at. I think you guys are assuming too much.
They don't have to. The threat is there, you don't know what they're there to do or what their knowledge of the layout of the home is or anything else, you are ending that threat. At that point, it's the intruder's fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and presenting that threat. No jury is going to convict anyone on that count, and most people around the world would both pull that trigger and expect others to pull it. This is pretty "nature 101", present a threat to offspring, get yourself near offspring and between them and a parent, and you can expect violence be it human, bear, lion, bird, etc. regardless of the intent.
Now, this doesn't mean "shoot willy nilly", confirm your target and what's before and beyond, and all that and other such things.
But yeah, there are absolutely instances where this does happen. A woman shot and killed a man in my town last summer after she found him in the home and he went into the daughter's room.
Herzlos wrote: Why not shoot him in the legs (i.e. to eliminate the threat without thd killing)
Because if you're in a situation where you're safe enough to do anything other than immediately kill the person you're shooting at you aren't justified in using deadly force. Shooting someone in the legs will cause serious pain and injuries (and may kill them, which is why it's considered deadly force), but won't necessarily prevent them from fighting back. So by being willing to accept that risk of them continuing to fight back you're acknowledging that your life is not in immediate danger, and the threat they present isn't enough to scare you. So put the gun away and resolve the situation some other way.
Now, this may be different in specific police situations where the legal permission to use force is significantly expanded, the shooter has specific training in disabling a suspect without killing them, and an opportunity exists to safely do so. But that has nothing to do with self defense for the average person.
Ouze wrote: I gotta say I think some of you are really overthinking this.
I think a lot of people are bending over backwards to justify shooting a burglar. "Hes going for the kids!" must be the new "Hes reaching for a gun!"
Perfect example of what Ouze pointed out...
Don't think just shoot?
If you're in my house you're getting a full load of buckshot before the thought even enters my mind to shoot. Thinking will only occur later, before the PoPo are called.
If you're in my house you're proven you're an immediate and lethal threat to my family and my dogs. You gave up your right to breath when you did that.
Nope. I understand it perfectly fine and I'm entitled to my opinion. If you've seen my posts in other gun threads, I generally support cops and their need for self defense. This wasn't that. This was a guy who got fed up, took drastic action, then tried to backpedal and claim it was self defense. The news station I was watching before work did a pretty good sum up of events. And discussed the judge throwing out his actions as "stand your ground". So yes...I happily say to let this foul human excrement suffer for destroying a family.
When your opinion is to deny someone a trial, your opinion is gak.
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
{citation needed}
You seem so confident in this statement, so I'm sure you'll back it up with evidence about what people do and do not worry about.
So, I started to make a rebuttal to your last post, Jake, but then a startling discovery revealed itself to me: if you READ my initial post on the matter, I never even ONCE said he didn't deserve a trial; I just said I hope he gets jail for life and hope he has to give the family all his money and crap. No part of that EVER said he didn't deserve a trial. Of course everyone is entitled to one. Just that I hope that's what he gets. All of that, if it happened, would take place when? Oh, right; after a trial. Seriously, DID you even read the post you responded to? Or were you just so outraged by my use of the word "filth" to describe the posts supporting this guy that it rendered my hope invisible? The only person who ever said I want to deny him a trial is you. It is interesting that you're attacking the words you put into my mouth though.
Now, if you want me to ACTUALLY be rude, I'll let you know that Derek Zoolander wants to open a school that would be helpful for you.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.
For openers, in the U.S., almost as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by gun related homicide. In that context, it doesn't really matter what's on the person's mind when they kill someone. Then move on to the fact that 2 out of three domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, and a further 73, 000 deaths can be attributed to alcohol, not even bringing in broken families lost work and health lost.
Gun violence seems kind of puny in relation, yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
So where is the evidence we ignore the dangers of alcohol?
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
Looking back at the past few pages I see exactly one person saying anything that could even be considered dismissive of the harm done by alcohol, and that's AlmightyWalrus' reply to your post (which happened after you made the "you don't care" accusation). And there's no mention of alcohol at all outside of this page, starting from your accusation. So no, you haven't provided any support at all for your accusation that "all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people" ignore problems with alcohol.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
So where is the evidence we ignore the dangers of alcohol?
How many anti alcohol posts have you made compared to anti gun?
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
Looking back at the past few pages I see exactly one person saying anything that could even be considered dismissive of the harm done by alcohol, and that's AlmightyWalrus' reply to your post (which happened after you made the "you don't care" accusation). And there's no mention of alcohol at all outside of this page, starting from your accusation. So no, you haven't provided any support at all for your accusation that "all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people" ignore problems with alcohol.
The fact that many here who say guns are bad because they're used to kill people talk in other threads about consuming alcohol bears out my point.
The tiny little problem is that you're assuming I drink. I don't. You're also assuming that I wouldn't want to get rid of alcohol; I would if there were a feasible way to do so. Just like with guns in the US, though, the djinn (or, well, gin I guess) is out of the bottle. There's a major difference in that guns aren't mind-altering or addictive and thus potentially much easier to restrict.
Relapse wrote: How many anti alcohol posts have you made compared to anti gun?
That means nothing because discussions of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol control are virtually nonexistent here, while gun-related stories are frequently in the news and gun policy is a common policy debate in politics.
The fact that many here who say guns are bad because they're used to kill people talk in other threads about consuming alcohol bears out my point.
No, it really doesn't. Discussing consuming alcohol is not the same as not caring about the harm that abuse of alcohol does. By the reasoning you're trying to use here anyone who posts in the "let's talk about our guns" thread doesn't care about the crimes committed with guns. And I think we both know that accusing everyone in the gun thread of being pro-murder would be an absurd thing to say.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
Soooo, posting about guns in a thread involving shooting and not complaining about the dangers of alcohol in a non related thread show we do not care about it?
I would talk about my dislike for alcohol, how we need better healthcare to cover alcoholism and stronger dui laws. But I'm pretty sure the mods would get upset with me for dragging this thread off topic.
I would think this alcohol thing is a totally unrelated tangent and report it to get back on track, but at this point, the main track seems to be a totally unrelated tangent about if it's OK to shoot a home invader in your house without first asking them what their motives are. Since the actual trial is probably a really long time out, and thus this thread is going to be locked imminently anyway....
Dreadwinter wrote: Because they know exactly where your kids room is at. I think you guys are assuming too much.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think it is reasonable to assume a burglar or other intruder in your home is an immediate mortal threat. As I said before, I would certainly give them an opportunity to surrender if possible but ultimately I think both the legal and moral responsibility for that situation, and it's consequences, lay with the person who chose to commit the home invasion.
lie? lay?
Mario wrote: What about the possibility of accidentally shooting your kid?
A basic rule of gun safety is not to shoot at anything unless you know what is behind your target. You can buy ammunition that remains lethal what being unlikely/less likely to penetrate drywall, but ultimately, you should not be shooting if you think you might hit someone other than your target - you're not a cop, after all.
Relapse wrote: yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.
Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.
o
Just look at the posts in this thread.
Soooo, posting about guns in a thread involving shooting and not complaining about the dangers of alcohol in a non related thread show we do not care about it?
I would talk about my dislike for alcohol, how we need better healthcare to cover alcoholism and stronger dui laws. But I'm pretty sure the mods would get upset with me for dragging this thread off topic.
It was dragged off topic a while back. But I think I've spoken enough about my pet peeve with the double standard with guns and alcohol.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.
That's a point often overlooked because there's no way it can be reliably measured.
I talked a few pages back about the off duty cop shooting someone in the head on a road rage incident, but there's also another incident a few weeks back when a hunter shot and killed two unarmed rural guards when they asked him for his documents.
The hunter himself called the emergency services. The audio was released to the press and makes for a powerful reminder of what having a gun does to one's psique.
Relapse wrote: Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.
Not really.
What you'll find they actually do is bear in mind the vast number of people/occasions that involve alcohol that turn out absolutely fine and/or with no significant harm or even the benefits it can bring in comparison to the amount of harm it brings.
Much the same way that the pro gun people are so quick to point out what a small % gun related incidents there are compared to the number of guns/owners.
with grandma.
