|
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. |
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. You're going to turn and fire on him before he stabs you in the spine? I guess if you're looking to be a victim twice over go for it Rambo. Of you give him your wallet and walk away in one piece, then call your bank. Seems much more reasonable to me.
Who said you have to turn to shoot a gun?
I mean, you have to reach into a pocket to get money for him. Just grab the gun instead. Shoot it backwards. You probably will get a good scratch from the knife, no doubt, but it beats it being in your chest.
And of course common sense always rules. No point in pulling a gun if you don't think you can actually get the shot that you need off in time.
|
On December 16 2012 17:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:00 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. Why the hell would I say no in that situation. Why would YOU say no in that situation? Hes got a knife pressed against your back, what exactly do you think you are going to do in that situation by saying no? I think it would depend on a lot of factors that vary (neighborhood, assailent, etc.) If I didn't think I was in danger I'd tell him to get lost. If I didn't have a gun and thought he would use the knife, I'd give him the money. If I was carrying a gun and thought I was in trouble, I would shoot him before I gave him money. In that order. I'd shoot him, then I'd give him the money. Then I'd ask him if it was worth it before I dialed 9-1-1. I think most people would do the same thing.
But that goes agaisnt your arguement, with your logic and the current gun laws, the mugger would not have a knife, he would also have a gun. So what are you going to do when he has a gun pointed at you, risk pulling out your gun, takin the safety off then shoot him? Chances are he would shoot you first.
Do you get it now? If everyone followed your logic, it would be like the wild west, if its not already.
|
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:14 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:00 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. Why the hell would I say no in that situation. Why would YOU say no in that situation? Hes got a knife pressed against your back, what exactly do you think you are going to do in that situation by saying no? I think it would depend on a lot of factors that vary (neighborhood, assailent, etc.) If I didn't think I was in danger I'd tell him to get lost. If I didn't have a gun and thought he would use the knife, I'd give him the money. If I was carrying a gun and thought I was in trouble, I would shoot him before I gave him money. In that order. I'd shoot him, then I'd give him the money. Then I'd ask him if it was worth it before I dialed 9-1-1. I think most people would do the same thing. But that goes agaisnt your arguement, with your logic and the current gun laws, the mugger would not have a knife, he would also have a gun. So what are you going to do when he has a gun pointed at you, risk pulling out your gun, takin the safety off then shoot him? Chances are he would shoot you first. Do you get it now? If everyone followed your logic, it would be like the wild west, if its not already.
That was never my logic. Maybe you're attributing statements of others to me? I was basically saying that you can't base it on subjective intent.
Obviously it doesn't make sense to defend yourself by pulling a gun if there is a gun against your head. Anybody who suggests that is an idiot. I mean, in principle you should be ALLOWED to, but I don't think it'd be advisable under most circumstances.
|
On December 16 2012 17:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. You're going to turn and fire on him before he stabs you in the spine? I guess if you're looking to be a victim twice over go for it Rambo. Of you give him your wallet and walk away in one piece, then call your bank. Seems much more reasonable to me. Who said you have to turn to shoot a gun? I mean, you have to reach into a pocket to get money for him. Just grab the gun instead. Shoot it backwards. You probably will get a good scratch from the knife, no doubt, but it beats it being in your chest. And of course common sense always rules. No point in pulling a gun if you don't think you can actually get the shot that you need off in time.
If he's behind you he's going to reach for your wallet himself. If you move he's stabbing you. 99% of guys carry their wallet in their back pocket, why the fuck would he ask you to get it for him when he has direct access to it and has you dead to rites. Go ahead and grab that gun and be without your wallet, dead or paralyzed on the street when he asks you if it was worth it.
Hell, for the sake of argument lets say you do pull the gun and squeeze off 1 round behind you. What if you hit some innocent person? Care to explain that one away to the police? "Oh shit, I just thought I would blindly fire my gun behind myself to possibly hit an assailant for $100 and some easily cancel-able credit cards. My bad!"
|
United States2776 Posts
Also, I think it's worth noting that guns probably come more in handy for defending people other than yourself. This still falls under the legal definition of self-defense. Self-defense includes third parties who are threatened.
|
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:18 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:14 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. You're going to turn and fire on him before he stabs you in the spine? I guess if you're looking to be a victim twice over go for it Rambo. Of you give him your wallet and walk away in one piece, then call your bank. Seems much more reasonable to me. Who said you have to turn to shoot a gun? I mean, you have to reach into a pocket to get money for him. Just grab the gun instead. Shoot it backwards. You probably will get a good scratch from the knife, no doubt, but it beats it being in your chest. And of course common sense always rules. No point in pulling a gun if you don't think you can actually get the shot that you need off in time. If he's behind you he's going to reach for your wallet himself. If you move he's stabbing you. 99% of guys carry their wallet in their back pocket, why the fuck would he ask you to get it for him when he has direct access to it and has you dead to rites. Go ahead and grab that gun and be without your wallet, dead or paralyzed on the street when he asks you if it was worth it. Hell, for the sake of argument lets say you do pull the gun and squeeze off 1 round behind you. What if you hit some innocent person? Care to explain that one away to the police? "Oh shit, I just thought I would blindly fire my gun behind myself to possibly hit an assailant for $100 and some easily cancel-able credit cards. My bad!"
While I appreciate you playing devil's advocate, every situation is different. I don't think there is one answer that solves all problems, and regardless of different hypos, the actual actions taken will always be able to be put in a negative light with the right facts. In other words, in some situations you are right.
I had originally used this hypo to explain why you could not include subjective intent into a self-defense statute and why it was irrelevant to that topic. This particular hypo wasn't meant to show "hey this wouldn't happen if I had a gun."
|
On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed?
You had me at "never". Do you feel at all guilty of using the word "logic" ?
Keldrath wrote:
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ?
|
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense.
|
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense.
Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights.
If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun.
I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem.
|
On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ?
While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice.
There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint.
|
On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? You had me at "never". Do you feel at all guilty of using the word "logic" ? Show nested quote +Keldrath wrote:
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ?
Wonder why you selectively ended that bolded portion right up to, but not including, the word unless.
And as for the second statement, thanks for announcing you are a psychopath.
|
On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem.
I fully believe you because its true. These guys do get their weapons mostly through illegal means/stealing, but still, you want them to be allowed to freely carry those same weapons in public, albeit concealed? No thanks. Rather than let everyone carry guns in the street, I'd rather no one have them but the police. Obviously that wont happen, but I can pretty much tell the situation of this city would get worse if they can carry them around.
|
On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense.
I guess Illinois is the epitome of "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Criminals are cowards. They prey on the weak. If someone can defend themselves, they find a weaker, more vulnerable target. If granny walking down the street is in Texas, it's entirely possible that she's armed and not a good target to mug. However, granny in the great city of Chicago is likely not armed and thus would be a great target to mug. Of course, even if granny in Texas isn't armed, she can scream to draw attention of any of the dozens of witnesses, among whom, several very likely are armed. Texas is not the place to commit such crimes. Chicago, however, is. Gun control takes away a strong deterrent against violent crime, the fact that you don't have to get caught by police, you damn well may get shot by a bystander.
|
On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem.
It's the general trend of stupidity of people who advocate gun violence saying "If we take guns away, they'll be less crime! I mean look at Japan/Norway/insert nation with strict gun control here!"
Gun control doesn't lower violent crime. The fact of the matter is, those nations have much lower rates of crime than America as is (ie. even removing all gun-related crime, America would still have a crime rate about 2-3x higher than Japan's). It doesn't matter if you legalized firearms there or not, the crime rate wouldn't increase drastically.
Banning guns does nothing to cut down violent crime if you don't target the root of the problem (gangs, drug dealers, etc.)
|
On December 16 2012 17:36 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem. I fully believe you because its true. These guys do get their weapons mostly through illegal means/stealing, but still, you want them to be allowed to freely carry those same weapons in public, albeit concealed? No thanks. Rather than let everyone carry guns in the street, I'd rather no one have them but the police. Obviously that wont happen, but I can pretty much tell the situation of this city would get worse if they can carry them around.
Do you honestly believe passing a law is going to stop criminals from carrying their weapons? That's foolish.
|
On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint.
I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene.
|
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:36 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem. I fully believe you because its true. These guys do get their weapons mostly through illegal means/stealing, but still, you want them to be allowed to freely carry those same weapons in public, albeit concealed? No thanks. Rather than let everyone carry guns in the street, I'd rather no one have them but the police. Obviously that wont happen, but I can pretty much tell the situation of this city would get worse if they can carry them around.
Eh, you still need a permit and a permit requires paperwork and registration. So a well written concealed carry law still doesn't touch the vast majority of illegal action.
|
On December 16 2012 17:35 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? You had me at "never". Do you feel at all guilty of using the word "logic" ? Keldrath wrote:
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? Wonder why you selectively ended that bolded portion right up to, but not including, the word unless. And as for the second statement, thanks for announcing you are a psychopath.
You made a ridiculous blanket statement as if you are aware of all situations that ever happen. It's a stupid thing to say.
That's "law-abiding psychopath" to you, thank you very much. I respect other people's rights and their property and expect the same in return.
|
On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene.
I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked.
|
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Gun crime is high in Chicago because of demographics and gangster rap culture that is rampant amongst certain demographics.It's time you stopped putting blame at the feet of the NRA and started seeing where the real problems are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
