|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 23 2012 05:53 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:37 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:53 Nouar wrote:On July 23 2012 04:40 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:23 Nouar wrote:On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. You are ignoring a few things. Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one. Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden. Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it. You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones. Addressing these points in reverse: I don't ignore those problems, I just think they are rare and signifcantly less common than you believe. I would contend that the numbers of outright gun kills that could be or are prevented or dissuaded by armed citizen defenders (or would never occur in the first place with the knowledge that so many people might be armed) would be vastly higher than accidental discharge deaths or innocents hit by well-meaning defenders, which would be worth it would you agree? Can you disprove this assertion? Or is it just my opinion vs yours? And I will never ever shed one tear for any man with malicious intent injured or killed when he is threatening to kill another by pointing a gun at them...there is no might have when it comes to this situation. The Police do the same thing, why is it ok for them to make that judgement and not a citizen, they are just men with guns after all in the end, and protectors of good against evil per se, same as any other man operating in defense of citizens. He will be charged with manslaughter if he was in the wrong. If an armed assailant gets shot, I am not going to feel bad for them, no matter if they were planning on using it or not (or if they were just using a fake). They deserve every amount of pain or death they receive. You can't tell me they can threaten innocent lives yet be shown mercy in one sentence then say innocent lives at risk are a reason for a good guy citizen not to come to their aid and take the shot. Then explain to me why and how most armies in the world are componsed of soldiers who have EXTENSIVE training and lessons on when, how, and what they incur if they shoot their weapon wrongly. That's because an innocent life is worth everything, even to the point of letting someone who would deserve to die alive, when in doubt. And citizens with no clue can fire at will ?.... And again, both people having a gun means there is really often a dead people there. Most robbers are not killers. But being confronted to someone who has a gun, and wants to defend himself, mean there is a really high chance one of them will end up dead. HOW IS THAT GOOD ? You might find it cowardly, but do you really prefer dying instead of just being robbed ? I'm a soldier. I know how to defend myself, how to attack, disable someone, you name it. I would NOT use these skills, unless my life (or my family) are in immediate danger. Robbers are "forced" to be ready to kill in order to rob in your country. They don't in mine. Why are there less dead people ? Because either both don't have weapon, or only the robber has. Cases of deathes by firearms are extremely rare here, barring the mafia killing each others. And we don't have a higher rob rate either. How do we do it ? Do we just die, are we afraid of not defending ourselves ? No, most thugs just don't have a weapon. You want to defend yourself, it's a good idea, but it's escalating. Robbers WILL rob. And people WILL die. You are advocating the death penalty for people wielding fake weapons to rob a hundred dollars..... Are you fucking SERIOUS ? The cops having lax rules on opening fire is disturbing me greatly, too, but you HAVE to realise that you are afraid of not being able to defend BECAUSE thugs have guns. Why do they have guns ? Because they need to, since everyone has one. It's a circle very difficult to get out of. You are knee-deep in it, so your beliefs are radically different than most other countries, since we don't have that problem. It's a society matter, it doesn't mean you're right. This thread is not about "should US citizens have weapons to defend themselves since all thugs have them", but "should citizens, wherever they are, have the right to freely carry guns." there are all kind of societies here. Yours need weapons, sadly, but it's not a fatality and you should open your views to other types of society. Having a gun mostly increases the chance you will have to kill someone, or be killed, instead of increasing your chances to survive. You're starting with the false assumption that only military and police training can provide training competence and knowledge and safety and gravity of what it means to fire a gun. Military specifically learns combat tactics, positioning, etc, but there is extensive training for normal citizens here when it comes to gun safety and how to react in certain situations. They can even go to 'citizen training facilities' etc, where they have different ranges for urban training. Some states require a certain amount of training to carry: I think they all should. You're also implying that most people who are threatened are going to shoot to kill every time. As I have stated many times, most of the time the threat of a gun is enough of a deterrant. Sometimes it might take a warning shot to prove you're serious. Rarely ever will it take you shooting them, unless they have a death wish. There aren't very many criminals when it comes down to it who will shoot at cops. Same logic applies. Most don't want to go away for murder or get killed, they'd rather give up and accept the consequences. Further, whether you acknowledge it or not, trained shooters know how to shoot to disable without shooting to kill. While no man should pull the trigger without accepting the person on the end may die, there are ways to shoot that are much less deadly. It's not about the severity of their crime. It's about not knowing what they will do with a firearm. I am not advocating shooting who is not armed, that would be evil, and a quick way to get charged with murder or manslaughter (Zimmerman). Like you, I would only shoot if my life or one around me could possibly be in danger. And if a thug is pointing a gun, I'm not going to try to figure out whether it's a fake or is rusted shut or w/e. I'm going to act. In your country, you say most thugs don't have a weapon. So there is no need for you to have one. I get it. Your replaceable, insured property is not worth getting into a confrontation with someone with a weapon. I get that too. But it doesn't matter, weapon or no, you would fight for your life or your family's life am I right? Well, alot of thugs here DO have weapons. As long as that is the case, I will have a gun, because I want to be able to defend my family if the time comes. And it happens here more often than you would think. I'm not advocating that at all. You're exaggerating it to make me look evil. I don't advocate that you can just execute anyone you want just because they rob you or hit you or break in to rape your wife. I'm advocating that someone can use a firearm to defend themselves if someone else threatens them with a deadly weapon, whether its real or they intend to kill, or not. Being threatened with a gun = being threatened with instant death, no one should take a chance on that. Am I saying you pull out a gun and shoot them immediately? Am I saying they deserve to die? No. No I'm not. Many shots will wound and not kill anyway. But I feel no sympathy for them if they get shot, because they brought it upon themselves by threatening with a deadly weapon. You shouldn't either. It's how life works when it's kill or be killed, and you can't know that it's not. There is no time for the police. You're right that it is sad our society has to be this way, it would be great if we could trust that there aren't any more guns out there in thug's hands, but that's not gonna happen overnight, it is the way it is, and you saying it's bad or your country's situation is better won't change a damn thing. If you come up with a solution, let me know. You're mostly right, I'm just explaining other point of views. I'll just answer specifically a few points : Citizens *can* learn of train about weapons and the correct ways to use them. Do they ? Are they required to ? Do you have number like the amount of people trained versus the number carrying a gun ? And yup, it can't change overnight, but right now it can't even begin to change due to that damn NRA and your election system where a 1% difference in a state can mean all or nothing in that state, and change a lot more than 1% in the election... :/ They won't even take the risk. I'm not making you look evil. You ARE saying armed robbers deserve their death if they threaten a person. Show me your penal code where in a trial, threatening someone with a gun means death sentence. The fact that citizens can inflict justice even justice can't is a flaw to me.
I don't know a number off hand, but I'll research it, then edit this back and PM you. However, I think whatever it is, it should be as close to 100% as possible, since I believe that training and safety courses should be mandatory for all states for all guns, not just concealed carry permits or certain states.
That's true, they won't. But it is definitely not ever a marginal figure like 1% you know?
I am saying if they are killed, they put themselves in that situation for threatening someone with a deadly weapon. Do they deserve to die over money or property? No. That's not justice. I am saying they are possibly going to take someone's life, which wielding a gun displays that willingness, and so I don't blame the person who takes them out before they have that chance. And I don't feel remorse for a criminal who would choose to risk their life like that, because they didn't care about their life enough not to do it, why should I care? I would rather take a would be murderer out early than risk letting him kill an innocent. I value life as much as you do. I hate the idea of death, especially murder. It's just like war.....do we wage war on their soil so that innocents don't die on ours? The tradeoff is worth it sometimes.
|
Well thanks for posting this, but doesn't this really belong in a thread aimed at critiquing police brutality and excess use of force? I mean, you can't possibly be suggesting something like this validates general gun ownership so that citizens can fire live ammunition at the police? Don't you think armed standoffs between civilians and police and the inevitable bloodbaths, martial law, and social unrest that would result would be worse than the behavior in this video? Is there no better way to speak to such problematic behavior?
|
On July 23 2012 06:01 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:55 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:47 Chargelot wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. Another problem with claiming that the police force could become a tyrant is that you are applying tyranny to the whole of the police force. Like any other collection of people, they are individuals which make up a collective. One can be bad, while the others are not. One police officer going on a rampage does not make the other 750,000 police officers tyrants. You can't simply strip almost a million people of all logic, reasoning, and human qualities, and then apply to them all the same negative opinion. You seem to like your quotes, so here's a nice one for you: Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", Section 202. It does not invalidate a senate for a senator to become a tyrant, it simply invalidates the authority of the singular senator. Right. My thought on the possibility of tyrrany and revolution is there would be a small group of powerful people who cling to the former power structure in spite of the revolution, and the majority of police and military would side with the American people. Most likely it would end without much bloodshed. That's why I don't think armed citizens would matter too much, but its more about the principle of it: 'you can corner and take or kill all of us one by one, but there are a lot of us, and we're united in our determination, so good fucking luck' Yeah, and I do think there is something to be said about the culture of a society which enshrines and recognizes the right of guns and self defence, and one that does not. I dont think the latter would really have much in the way of determination, tbh. As to the whole justice issue up a few posts; you have a right to kill someone who threatens your life, not a robber. The rational behind the castle doctrine etc is that you immediately have reasonable grounds to presume a threat to your life if someone breaks into your house. You have no way of knowing their intentions or weaponry, so you make the call to protect yourself.
Yep. Agreed. The 'Stand Your Ground' thing should not give you authority to kill an unarmed individual, no matter how they are offending you or hurting you. That's fucked up. But if someone is pointing a gun at you or a loved one, you can't stop to question if they are bluffing.
|
On July 23 2012 06:06 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:01 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 05:55 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:47 Chargelot wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. Another problem with claiming that the police force could become a tyrant is that you are applying tyranny to the whole of the police force. Like any other collection of people, they are individuals which make up a collective. One can be bad, while the others are not. One police officer going on a rampage does not make the other 750,000 police officers tyrants. You can't simply strip almost a million people of all logic, reasoning, and human qualities, and then apply to them all the same negative opinion. You seem to like your quotes, so here's a nice one for you: Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", Section 202. It does not invalidate a senate for a senator to become a tyrant, it simply invalidates the authority of the singular senator. Right. My thought on the possibility of tyrrany and revolution is there would be a small group of powerful people who cling to the former power structure in spite of the revolution, and the majority of police and military would side with the American people. Most likely it would end without much bloodshed. That's why I don't think armed citizens would matter too much, but its more about the principle of it: 'you can corner and take or kill all of us one by one, but there are a lot of us, and we're united in our determination, so good fucking luck' Yeah, and I do think there is something to be said about the culture of a society which enshrines and recognizes the right of guns and self defence, and one that does not. I dont think the latter would really have much in the way of determination, tbh. As to the whole justice issue up a few posts; you have a right to kill someone who threatens your life, not a robber. The rational behind the castle doctrine etc is that you immediately have reasonable grounds to presume a threat to your life if someone breaks into your house. You have no way of knowing their intentions or weaponry, so you make the call to protect yourself. Yep. Agreed. The 'Stand Your Ground' thing should not give you authority to kill an unarmed individual, no matter how they are offending you or hurting you. That's fucked up. But if someone is pointing a gun at you or a loved one, you can't stop to question if they are bluffing.
So if someone is beating you to death you shouldn't be able to save your life by using a gun?
|
On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military.
Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern.
|
On July 23 2012 06:07 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:06 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:01 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 05:55 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:47 Chargelot wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. Another problem with claiming that the police force could become a tyrant is that you are applying tyranny to the whole of the police force. Like any other collection of people, they are individuals which make up a collective. One can be bad, while the others are not. One police officer going on a rampage does not make the other 750,000 police officers tyrants. You can't simply strip almost a million people of all logic, reasoning, and human qualities, and then apply to them all the same negative opinion. You seem to like your quotes, so here's a nice one for you: Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", Section 202. It does not invalidate a senate for a senator to become a tyrant, it simply invalidates the authority of the singular senator. Right. My thought on the possibility of tyrrany and revolution is there would be a small group of powerful people who cling to the former power structure in spite of the revolution, and the majority of police and military would side with the American people. Most likely it would end without much bloodshed. That's why I don't think armed citizens would matter too much, but its more about the principle of it: 'you can corner and take or kill all of us one by one, but there are a lot of us, and we're united in our determination, so good fucking luck' Yeah, and I do think there is something to be said about the culture of a society which enshrines and recognizes the right of guns and self defence, and one that does not. I dont think the latter would really have much in the way of determination, tbh. As to the whole justice issue up a few posts; you have a right to kill someone who threatens your life, not a robber. The rational behind the castle doctrine etc is that you immediately have reasonable grounds to presume a threat to your life if someone breaks into your house. You have no way of knowing their intentions or weaponry, so you make the call to protect yourself. Yep. Agreed. The 'Stand Your Ground' thing should not give you authority to kill an unarmed individual, no matter how they are offending you or hurting you. That's fucked up. But if someone is pointing a gun at you or a loved one, you can't stop to question if they are bluffing. So if someone is beating you to death you shouldn't be able to save your life by using a gun?
It was my understanding that the implications of "stand your ground" laws extended well beyond this type of scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground
|
On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern.
The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to.
|
Maybe we should ban cars and alcohol because so many people die from them. There are always a percentage of people who misuse things. I mean you could go blazing down the sidewalk in a truck and kill lots of people too. And it's happened, I know families who have lost someone to a drunk driver, but yet prohibition was never reinstated.
In the US it is the will of the people that prevails, and the majority say that they are happy with the current system. Thus until you can change public oppinion, the status quo will remain the same. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong if it is on the books and approved by the public and the courts.
|
On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to.
It's not as if guns can revoke laws, and the use of firearms to prevent the PATRIOT act would have just hastened its rate of acceptance into law when you understand what it is.
|
On July 23 2012 05:59 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:53 Nouar wrote:On July 23 2012 05:37 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:53 Nouar wrote:On July 23 2012 04:40 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:23 Nouar wrote:On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. You are ignoring a few things. Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one. Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden. Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it. You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones. Addressing these points in reverse: I don't ignore those problems, I just think they are rare and signifcantly less common than you believe. I would contend that the numbers of outright gun kills that could be or are prevented or dissuaded by armed citizen defenders (or would never occur in the first place with the knowledge that so many people might be armed) would be vastly higher than accidental discharge deaths or innocents hit by well-meaning defenders, which would be worth it would you agree? Can you disprove this assertion? Or is it just my opinion vs yours? And I will never ever shed one tear for any man with malicious intent injured or killed when he is threatening to kill another by pointing a gun at them...there is no might have when it comes to this situation. The Police do the same thing, why is it ok for them to make that judgement and not a citizen, they are just men with guns after all in the end, and protectors of good against evil per se, same as any other man operating in defense of citizens. He will be charged with manslaughter if he was in the wrong. If an armed assailant gets shot, I am not going to feel bad for them, no matter if they were planning on using it or not (or if they were just using a fake). They deserve every amount of pain or death they receive. You can't tell me they can threaten innocent lives yet be shown mercy in one sentence then say innocent lives at risk are a reason for a good guy citizen not to come to their aid and take the shot. Then explain to me why and how most armies in the world are componsed of soldiers who have EXTENSIVE training and lessons on when, how, and what they incur if they shoot their weapon wrongly. That's because an innocent life is worth everything, even to the point of letting someone who would deserve to die alive, when in doubt. And citizens with no clue can fire at will ?.... And again, both people having a gun means there is really often a dead people there. Most robbers are not killers. But being confronted to someone who has a gun, and wants to defend himself, mean there is a really high chance one of them will end up dead. HOW IS THAT GOOD ? You might find it cowardly, but do you really prefer dying instead of just being robbed ? I'm a soldier. I know how to defend myself, how to attack, disable someone, you name it. I would NOT use these skills, unless my life (or my family) are in immediate danger. Robbers are "forced" to be ready to kill in order to rob in your country. They don't in mine. Why are there less dead people ? Because either both don't have weapon, or only the robber has. Cases of deathes by firearms are extremely rare here, barring the mafia killing each others. And we don't have a higher rob rate either. How do we do it ? Do we just die, are we afraid of not defending ourselves ? No, most thugs just don't have a weapon. You want to defend yourself, it's a good idea, but it's escalating. Robbers WILL rob. And people WILL die. You are advocating the death penalty for people wielding fake weapons to rob a hundred dollars..... Are you fucking SERIOUS ? The cops having lax rules on opening fire is disturbing me greatly, too, but you HAVE to realise that you are afraid of not being able to defend BECAUSE thugs have guns. Why do they have guns ? Because they need to, since everyone has one. It's a circle very difficult to get out of. You are knee-deep in it, so your beliefs are radically different than most other countries, since we don't have that problem. It's a society matter, it doesn't mean you're right. This thread is not about "should US citizens have weapons to defend themselves since all thugs have them", but "should citizens, wherever they are, have the right to freely carry guns." there are all kind of societies here. Yours need weapons, sadly, but it's not a fatality and you should open your views to other types of society. Having a gun mostly increases the chance you will have to kill someone, or be killed, instead of increasing your chances to survive. You're starting with the false assumption that only military and police training can provide training competence and knowledge and safety and gravity of what it means to fire a gun. Military specifically learns combat tactics, positioning, etc, but there is extensive training for normal citizens here when it comes to gun safety and how to react in certain situations. They can even go to 'citizen training facilities' etc, where they have different ranges for urban training. Some states require a certain amount of training to carry: I think they all should. You're also implying that most people who are threatened are going to shoot to kill every time. As I have stated many times, most of the time the threat of a gun is enough of a deterrant. Sometimes it might take a warning shot to prove you're serious. Rarely ever will it take you shooting them, unless they have a death wish. There aren't very many criminals when it comes down to it who will shoot at cops. Same logic applies. Most don't want to go away for murder or get killed, they'd rather give up and accept the consequences. Further, whether you acknowledge it or not, trained shooters know how to shoot to disable without shooting to kill. While no man should pull the trigger without accepting the person on the end may die, there are ways to shoot that are much less deadly. It's not about the severity of their crime. It's about not knowing what they will do with a firearm. I am not advocating shooting who is not armed, that would be evil, and a quick way to get charged with murder or manslaughter (Zimmerman). Like you, I would only shoot if my life or one around me could possibly be in danger. And if a thug is pointing a gun, I'm not going to try to figure out whether it's a fake or is rusted shut or w/e. I'm going to act. In your country, you say most thugs don't have a weapon. So there is no need for you to have one. I get it. Your replaceable, insured property is not worth getting into a confrontation with someone with a weapon. I get that too. But it doesn't matter, weapon or no, you would fight for your life or your family's life am I right? Well, alot of thugs here DO have weapons. As long as that is the case, I will have a gun, because I want to be able to defend my family if the time comes. And it happens here more often than you would think. I'm not advocating that at all. You're exaggerating it to make me look evil. I don't advocate that you can just execute anyone you want just because they rob you or hit you or break in to rape your wife. I'm advocating that someone can use a firearm to defend themselves if someone else threatens them with a deadly weapon, whether its real or they intend to kill, or not. Being threatened with a gun = being threatened with instant death, no one should take a chance on that. Am I saying you pull out a gun and shoot them immediately? Am I saying they deserve to die? No. No I'm not. Many shots will wound and not kill anyway. But I feel no sympathy for them if they get shot, because they brought it upon themselves by threatening with a deadly weapon. You shouldn't either. It's how life works when it's kill or be killed, and you can't know that it's not. There is no time for the police. You're right that it is sad our society has to be this way, it would be great if we could trust that there aren't any more guns out there in thug's hands, but that's not gonna happen overnight, it is the way it is, and you saying it's bad or your country's situation is better won't change a damn thing. If you come up with a solution, let me know. You're mostly right, I'm just explaining other point of views. I'll just answer specifically a few points : Citizens *can* learn of train about weapons and the correct ways to use them. Do they ? Are they required to ? Do you have number like the amount of people trained versus the number carrying a gun ? And yup, it can't change overnight, but right now it can't even begin to change due to that damn NRA and your election system where a 1% difference in a state can mean all or nothing in that state, and change a lot more than 1% in the election... :/ They won't even take the risk. I'm not making you look evil. You ARE saying armed robbers deserve their death if they threaten a person. Show me your penal code where in a trial, threatening someone with a gun means death sentence. The fact that citizens can inflict justice even justice can't is a flaw to me. So in France your penal code says "if a man attacks you with a weapon, just die"? What government could say "suffer the injury" and still be a government validated by the consent of its populace? You seem to confuse citizen action in the moment with justice. When you view it like that, everything a person can do is ridiculous. How many muggers are sentenced to get beat up in a court? But how many people have beat up muggers in France, and didn't get prosecuted for it because they were simply defending themselves? You simply cannot compare the actions of civillians and government in any situation. They are not, and have never been restricted in the same way. People are allowed to defend themselves from physical harm. You cannot force people to be in a situation where they are either harmed (from inaction) or imprisoned (from action).
No. You misunderstood me. I am comparing citizen action with my action as a depositary of public force on duty. But self-defense in france is extremely harsh.
The aggression must be :
current : imminent danger ;
Unjustified : you can't use self-defense against police action.
real : you can't suppose there is an aggression (this is the most difficult part, meaning you have to see the weapon, and the guy must be on the verge of shooting already, or better, have shot already).
And defense must be :
necessary : you must have no other way of escaping (ie. you can't shoot someone just cause he is in your house) ;
simultaneous : you can't act out of vengeance or shoot someone running away or who already lowered or threw his weapon ;
proportionate to the aggression : you can't shoot someone wielding a knife.
Yes, these rules are harsh. And they apply to both citizens AND armed forces, police or the army.
We have no "stand your ground" law. It's fine, really.
|
On July 23 2012 06:07 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:06 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:01 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 05:55 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:47 Chargelot wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. Another problem with claiming that the police force could become a tyrant is that you are applying tyranny to the whole of the police force. Like any other collection of people, they are individuals which make up a collective. One can be bad, while the others are not. One police officer going on a rampage does not make the other 750,000 police officers tyrants. You can't simply strip almost a million people of all logic, reasoning, and human qualities, and then apply to them all the same negative opinion. You seem to like your quotes, so here's a nice one for you: Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", Section 202. It does not invalidate a senate for a senator to become a tyrant, it simply invalidates the authority of the singular senator. Right. My thought on the possibility of tyrrany and revolution is there would be a small group of powerful people who cling to the former power structure in spite of the revolution, and the majority of police and military would side with the American people. Most likely it would end without much bloodshed. That's why I don't think armed citizens would matter too much, but its more about the principle of it: 'you can corner and take or kill all of us one by one, but there are a lot of us, and we're united in our determination, so good fucking luck' Yeah, and I do think there is something to be said about the culture of a society which enshrines and recognizes the right of guns and self defence, and one that does not. I dont think the latter would really have much in the way of determination, tbh. As to the whole justice issue up a few posts; you have a right to kill someone who threatens your life, not a robber. The rational behind the castle doctrine etc is that you immediately have reasonable grounds to presume a threat to your life if someone breaks into your house. You have no way of knowing their intentions or weaponry, so you make the call to protect yourself. Yep. Agreed. The 'Stand Your Ground' thing should not give you authority to kill an unarmed individual, no matter how they are offending you or hurting you. That's fucked up. But if someone is pointing a gun at you or a loved one, you can't stop to question if they are bluffing. So if someone is beating you to death you shouldn't be able to save your life by using a gun?
It's arguable. It would make sense in some cases, but in others it doesn't. Therefore I don't think there should be a universal law that gives you protection if you feel threatened in any way. I think you should be arrested when you take someone's life, until the details can be determined and you can be cleared. You shouldn't just get to say 'yeah, i was scared, so I shot him." then get sent on your merry way.
If we're talking about an unarmed scrawny black kid with no criminal history fighting a grown ass man, hell no you can't shoot him just because he's throwing fists. You better expect manslaughter minimum.
|
In fact, to add to my previous post, I'll give the example of that jeweler yesterday in Paris who killed a robber (he hit his shoulder, so much for disabling someone with shots that don't kill) who came into his shop with a gun. He is under custody for manslaughter right now because his life was not in immediate danger.
|
On July 23 2012 06:19 Nouar wrote:
In fact, to add to my previous post, I'll give the example of that jeweler yesterday in Paris who killed a robber who came into his shop with a gun. He is under custody for manslaughter right now because his life was not in immediate danger.
Indeed, I think that is neccessary until it can be proved that he justifiable reason to take a life.
|
On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now.
|
On July 23 2012 06:14 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:59 Chargelot wrote:On July 23 2012 05:53 Nouar wrote:On July 23 2012 05:37 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:53 Nouar wrote:On July 23 2012 04:40 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 04:23 Nouar wrote:On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. You are ignoring a few things. Armed robbery isn't usually equal to death sentence for one. Then, OK, the "bad guy" died. It's still a death. This guy might have, might have not shot, the weapon might have been fake, you might be dead, some lives have been saved, others have been lost. A robber would be far less inclined to shoot if his opponent didn't have a weapon, AND there would be a lot less armed robberies or any other offense with a gun if guns were more controlled/forbidden. Lastly, for a life truly saved, how many are lost by a misunderstanding, and a failed estimation of danger from the "righteous" guy ? I can link you to hundreds of those, too. And the life of an innocent is NEVER, EVER worth whatever you oppose it. You're not *wrong*, you just conveniently ignore a whole side of the problem, that is to say that not everybody should be a hero, because they were not TRAINED to do so and are bound to take bad decisions quite often. With firearms, these bad decisions imply deathes. Wrong ones. Addressing these points in reverse: I don't ignore those problems, I just think they are rare and signifcantly less common than you believe. I would contend that the numbers of outright gun kills that could be or are prevented or dissuaded by armed citizen defenders (or would never occur in the first place with the knowledge that so many people might be armed) would be vastly higher than accidental discharge deaths or innocents hit by well-meaning defenders, which would be worth it would you agree? Can you disprove this assertion? Or is it just my opinion vs yours? And I will never ever shed one tear for any man with malicious intent injured or killed when he is threatening to kill another by pointing a gun at them...there is no might have when it comes to this situation. The Police do the same thing, why is it ok for them to make that judgement and not a citizen, they are just men with guns after all in the end, and protectors of good against evil per se, same as any other man operating in defense of citizens. He will be charged with manslaughter if he was in the wrong. If an armed assailant gets shot, I am not going to feel bad for them, no matter if they were planning on using it or not (or if they were just using a fake). They deserve every amount of pain or death they receive. You can't tell me they can threaten innocent lives yet be shown mercy in one sentence then say innocent lives at risk are a reason for a good guy citizen not to come to their aid and take the shot. Then explain to me why and how most armies in the world are componsed of soldiers who have EXTENSIVE training and lessons on when, how, and what they incur if they shoot their weapon wrongly. That's because an innocent life is worth everything, even to the point of letting someone who would deserve to die alive, when in doubt. And citizens with no clue can fire at will ?.... And again, both people having a gun means there is really often a dead people there. Most robbers are not killers. But being confronted to someone who has a gun, and wants to defend himself, mean there is a really high chance one of them will end up dead. HOW IS THAT GOOD ? You might find it cowardly, but do you really prefer dying instead of just being robbed ? I'm a soldier. I know how to defend myself, how to attack, disable someone, you name it. I would NOT use these skills, unless my life (or my family) are in immediate danger. Robbers are "forced" to be ready to kill in order to rob in your country. They don't in mine. Why are there less dead people ? Because either both don't have weapon, or only the robber has. Cases of deathes by firearms are extremely rare here, barring the mafia killing each others. And we don't have a higher rob rate either. How do we do it ? Do we just die, are we afraid of not defending ourselves ? No, most thugs just don't have a weapon. You want to defend yourself, it's a good idea, but it's escalating. Robbers WILL rob. And people WILL die. You are advocating the death penalty for people wielding fake weapons to rob a hundred dollars..... Are you fucking SERIOUS ? The cops having lax rules on opening fire is disturbing me greatly, too, but you HAVE to realise that you are afraid of not being able to defend BECAUSE thugs have guns. Why do they have guns ? Because they need to, since everyone has one. It's a circle very difficult to get out of. You are knee-deep in it, so your beliefs are radically different than most other countries, since we don't have that problem. It's a society matter, it doesn't mean you're right. This thread is not about "should US citizens have weapons to defend themselves since all thugs have them", but "should citizens, wherever they are, have the right to freely carry guns." there are all kind of societies here. Yours need weapons, sadly, but it's not a fatality and you should open your views to other types of society. Having a gun mostly increases the chance you will have to kill someone, or be killed, instead of increasing your chances to survive. You're starting with the false assumption that only military and police training can provide training competence and knowledge and safety and gravity of what it means to fire a gun. Military specifically learns combat tactics, positioning, etc, but there is extensive training for normal citizens here when it comes to gun safety and how to react in certain situations. They can even go to 'citizen training facilities' etc, where they have different ranges for urban training. Some states require a certain amount of training to carry: I think they all should. You're also implying that most people who are threatened are going to shoot to kill every time. As I have stated many times, most of the time the threat of a gun is enough of a deterrant. Sometimes it might take a warning shot to prove you're serious. Rarely ever will it take you shooting them, unless they have a death wish. There aren't very many criminals when it comes down to it who will shoot at cops. Same logic applies. Most don't want to go away for murder or get killed, they'd rather give up and accept the consequences. Further, whether you acknowledge it or not, trained shooters know how to shoot to disable without shooting to kill. While no man should pull the trigger without accepting the person on the end may die, there are ways to shoot that are much less deadly. It's not about the severity of their crime. It's about not knowing what they will do with a firearm. I am not advocating shooting who is not armed, that would be evil, and a quick way to get charged with murder or manslaughter (Zimmerman). Like you, I would only shoot if my life or one around me could possibly be in danger. And if a thug is pointing a gun, I'm not going to try to figure out whether it's a fake or is rusted shut or w/e. I'm going to act. In your country, you say most thugs don't have a weapon. So there is no need for you to have one. I get it. Your replaceable, insured property is not worth getting into a confrontation with someone with a weapon. I get that too. But it doesn't matter, weapon or no, you would fight for your life or your family's life am I right? Well, alot of thugs here DO have weapons. As long as that is the case, I will have a gun, because I want to be able to defend my family if the time comes. And it happens here more often than you would think. I'm not advocating that at all. You're exaggerating it to make me look evil. I don't advocate that you can just execute anyone you want just because they rob you or hit you or break in to rape your wife. I'm advocating that someone can use a firearm to defend themselves if someone else threatens them with a deadly weapon, whether its real or they intend to kill, or not. Being threatened with a gun = being threatened with instant death, no one should take a chance on that. Am I saying you pull out a gun and shoot them immediately? Am I saying they deserve to die? No. No I'm not. Many shots will wound and not kill anyway. But I feel no sympathy for them if they get shot, because they brought it upon themselves by threatening with a deadly weapon. You shouldn't either. It's how life works when it's kill or be killed, and you can't know that it's not. There is no time for the police. You're right that it is sad our society has to be this way, it would be great if we could trust that there aren't any more guns out there in thug's hands, but that's not gonna happen overnight, it is the way it is, and you saying it's bad or your country's situation is better won't change a damn thing. If you come up with a solution, let me know. You're mostly right, I'm just explaining other point of views. I'll just answer specifically a few points : Citizens *can* learn of train about weapons and the correct ways to use them. Do they ? Are they required to ? Do you have number like the amount of people trained versus the number carrying a gun ? And yup, it can't change overnight, but right now it can't even begin to change due to that damn NRA and your election system where a 1% difference in a state can mean all or nothing in that state, and change a lot more than 1% in the election... :/ They won't even take the risk. I'm not making you look evil. You ARE saying armed robbers deserve their death if they threaten a person. Show me your penal code where in a trial, threatening someone with a gun means death sentence. The fact that citizens can inflict justice even justice can't is a flaw to me. So in France your penal code says "if a man attacks you with a weapon, just die"? What government could say "suffer the injury" and still be a government validated by the consent of its populace? You seem to confuse citizen action in the moment with justice. When you view it like that, everything a person can do is ridiculous. How many muggers are sentenced to get beat up in a court? But how many people have beat up muggers in France, and didn't get prosecuted for it because they were simply defending themselves? You simply cannot compare the actions of civillians and government in any situation. They are not, and have never been restricted in the same way. People are allowed to defend themselves from physical harm. You cannot force people to be in a situation where they are either harmed (from inaction) or imprisoned (from action). No. You misunderstood me. I am comparing citizen action with my action as a depositary of public force on duty. But self-defense in france is extremely harsh. The aggression must be : current : imminent danger ; Unjustified : you can't use self-defense against police action. real : you can't suppose there is an aggression (this is the most difficult part, meaning you have to see the weapon, and the guy must be on the verge of shooting already, or better, have shot already). And defense must be : necessary : you must have no other way of escaping (ie. you can't shoot someone just cause he is in your house) ; simultaneous : you can't act out of vengeance or shoot someone running away or who already lowered or threw his weapon ; proportionate to the aggression : you can't shoot someone wielding a knife. Yes, these rules are harsh. And they apply to both citizens AND armed forces, police or the army. We have no "stand your ground" law. It's fine, really.
In terms of self-defense laws, there are 50 different sets of laws, with 50 different levels of allowance to the victim. So in the US at least, it's a little more complicated I suppose. I know in my state there are very loosely defined guidelines, instead of hard laws, and it's handled in court on a case by case basis. One much repeated phrase is "Delaware has no self-defense laws", which is basically true, there are some though.
+ Show Spoiler +(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed
The basic summary is: a defender has the right to use the same level of force against an attacker. Fists against fists, knives against knives, guns against guns. Typically, the defender needs to prove his claim. Will a man threatening me with a gun be put to death? No. But the penal code does say that if I have my own gun, and he is going to shoot me with his, I may kill him with mine.
|
On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to.
The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian.
|
On July 23 2012 06:23 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now.
I disagree. We aren't that far gone yet, even though our rights have the threat of being trampled on, it is not as bad as the conservative blogosphere would have us believe. We should be active in watching, but the sky is not falling yet. That said, I do think something else is emminent: economic collapse. If that happens, our society is too reliant on the 'system as it is' and 'just in time' goods to stay orderly very long. It would be mass chaos and breakdown of infrastructure like the world has never seen. I don't think we're in an unrecoverable position where that is GOING to happen, but I think that the mainstream media telling us that everything is fine and we are starting to pull out of our recession is just a comfort that is staving off panic. No one is willing to acknowledge the fact that we nearly went into a depression 2 years ago, and we did nothing to reverse the trend, in fact we made it worse by jumping in the deep end of debt, and devaluing our dollar by doing so. Drastic changes need to be made in all areas of this nation, not just our government, before we start to pull out of it, but I don't think people are willing to change until it's too late.
But that's another thread :D
|
On July 23 2012 06:23 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now.
I know im going to regret asking but what right has possibly been reduced lately?
|
On July 23 2012 06:35 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian.
Again. You're assuming that the entire force of the military would be turned on the American people. If a few million Americans march up to The Mall in Washington DC and every single one is carrying a rifle, I doubt that bombs would be dropped, and I doubt that they would even have to use their rifles.Their demands would probably be met. Also you're acting as if, if it does come to violence, that every fight is going to happen in an open field, like an old man with an AR is going to fire at a fighter jet. No, it would be something like: there will be a national call issued that all guns are being collected from home to home, and gun owners will issue a polite "No." They aren't going to clusterbomb entire neighborhoods or point a tank at every home saying bring out the guns or you get blown away. It's just about the principal of every American to posses the ability to defend against a man who tries to capture or kill him. No one is naive enough to think united gun owners and militia would survive the full force of the US military if they decided they were going to commit genocide on the American people.
If the military sides with the people, which I could never imagine otherwise, the people can just walk into the capitol building and take over.
But honestly, I think the tradition and respect for firearms will die out here eventually, and in 4-5 generations, they will just be surrendered voluntarily, as there won't be much need for them anymore.
|
On July 23 2012 06:41 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:23 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now. I know im going to regret asking but what right has possibly been reduced lately?
It's just... you are less and less anonymous, whatever you do, you're tracked, checked, double-checked, recorded (and eventually listened), whatever you do, surf, buy or anything. There's barely your home left as a haven.
And the Patriot Act was a huge fucking blow, it's amazing what you can pass when public opinion is shocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
