|
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 December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair.
I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back.
By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement).
|
On December 17 2012 07:38 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:34 Mista_Masta wrote:On December 16 2012 23:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper healthcare is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation. You have a good point, and I probably worded my opinion poorly. What I find sad, is that many people get denied the treatment they need because their insurance doesn't cover the costs or because they cannot afford insurance in the first place. That is what I meant by healthcare being a privilege. Disagreed [with BluePanther] - a right is not simply an allowance, it is an INHERENT allowance. Big, important, difference. Healthcare being an obligation is a bit of a biasing vocab, but understood (though not sure how its relevant except to illustrate the semantic difference).
A right = something you are permitted to do without government interference in the base ability (in other words, they may regulate or add conditionals that don't trash the ability to exercise the right)
An obligation requires someone to do something to their personal detriment. This can include both personal obligations or governmental obligations.
You are permitted to own a gun.
You were permitted to own health insurance.
These are rights.
Your are now required to buy health insurance.
This is a personal obligations.
We are entitled to social security.
This is a government obligation.
Health-care used to be a right, now it's an obligation. Your objection is based on a different definition of a right. There are multiple ways to describe it. I think calling something the government is forced to provide that isn't an affirmative choice isn't actually a right.
For example: "right to education". I think this phrase means the permission to pursue an education, whereas some would consider it an obligation for the government to educate. I just think it's easier to call it a government obligation rather than a personal right.
The only reason to define it differently is for political reasons (imo).
|
On December 17 2012 07:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:48 KwarK wrote:On December 17 2012 07:43 Kaitlin wrote:On December 17 2012 07:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding. What? Read it again. "Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police." And that has nothing to with why he is in trouble. ‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing." On December 17 2012 07:22 heliusx wrote:
he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. He should not have used anymore shots than necessary to make sure they weren't a threat, not to make sure they were dead! That is the whole point! And no, he didn't use more shots that necessary to make sure they were dead, he killed defenseless people that posed no threat to himself. He could have shot them once and called the police immediately. The point here is that you can't kill intruders just because they broke into your house, Castle Doctrine or not. If you could, then this guy wouldn't be in trouble.So my friend you are entirely wrong. On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home. No, someone breaking into your house is not enough for you to kill them. You do not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Case closed. We can all learn so much from those who end their argument in a debate with "case closed". The finishing shot was excessive, he would have been much better to grab himself a chair, waiting for them to bleed out, then calling the police. Or call the police and let them get there with an ambulance asaply because sitting there and watching two teenagers die when you can save them is really, really fucked up. Yes, stealing is wrong, not arguing that one. But they could have gone on to contribute to society and they have friends and parents and siblings and so forth, anyone with a shred of empathy would feel obliged to help someone else's kid survive, even if they had made some pretty awful choices. Purely from an economic point of view an 18 year old represents a pretty huge investment in food and education that is getting squandered, society as a whole is losing out unless you know absolutely that they were never going to do more than steal. I have to question your assessment of their ability to contribute to society, as opposed to being a strain on it. These kids were addicted to drugs, at least she apparently was. I don't know if this was their first burglary, but had it been successful, do you think it would be their last ? How would you feel if you were the next on their list and having pawned some of the shit they stole from their prior burglary, they purchased a firearm ? Not to mention, assuming they didn't get away, they would be prosecuted and have served a number of years in prison for this crime. So, instead of contributing to society, they are a strain on it for a number of years. Yeah, I'm not convinced the "investment" in these two is worth much. Anyways, you can never know someone's intentions when they violate your personal residence, you have no choice but to assume the worst to satisfactorily protect your family.
I agree with this defense but think the situation being argued about is an anecdotal one that neither side is particularly building a strong argument on. On one hand, you must assume the worst for full protection. On the other hand, assuming the worst does not necessitate doing the worst - the issue is that the person was killed instead of, one step down, immobilized. The question is how many steps down do you go before you are not really defending yourself anymore??
Also I'd be very careful about the argument of "potential to contribute vs. strain society" as it seems to stray into the path of a eugenics-type argument. I understand saying that some people are bad eggs and bad eggs with bad weaponry leads to bad situations, but outside of this particular anecdote, to generally justify the elimination of the inherently "bad/dangerous" people (ironically by the same means you argue are bad/dangerous - gun violence), is historically a very sticky place to be.
|
On December 17 2012 08:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:38 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:34 Mista_Masta wrote:On December 16 2012 23:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper healthcare is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation. You have a good point, and I probably worded my opinion poorly. What I find sad, is that many people get denied the treatment they need because their insurance doesn't cover the costs or because they cannot afford insurance in the first place. That is what I meant by healthcare being a privilege. Disagreed [with BluePanther] - a right is not simply an allowance, it is an INHERENT allowance. Big, important, difference. Healthcare being an obligation is a bit of a biasing vocab, but understood (though not sure how its relevant except to illustrate the semantic difference). A right = something you are permitted to do without government interference in the base ability (in other words, they may regulate or add conditionals that don't trash the ability to exercise the right) An obligation requires someone to do something to their personal detriment. This can include both personal obligations or governmental obligations.
Highlighting the point that I was making and you left out in your original description. Obviously there are different definitions but the concept is the same and I felt you left out an important (if semantic) piece.
Didn't disagree with any of the rest (though I think say an obligation is necessarily detrimental is kinda pessimistic  ).
|
I don't consider the "potential to contribute" aspect at all, only the fact that "someone" has broken into my home. I was only refuting an assertion that the two teens lives had value which was wasted upon killing them. I was only arguing they weren't so valuable as he might think, not that that should be a consideration at all when defending your family or property.
|
|
|
On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement).
objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim.
Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong.
|
Nah, those stories NEVER make it to the national news. They happen quite often though. Moreso than "rampages" that get national attention. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing for those who support legal firearms, though.
|
United States42775 Posts
On December 17 2012 08:13 Kaitlin wrote:
I don't consider the "potential to contribute" aspect at all, only the fact that "someone" has broken into my home. I was only refuting an assertion that the two teens lives had value which was wasted upon killing them. I was only arguing they weren't so valuable as he might think, not that that should be a consideration at all when defending your family or property.
Breaking and entering is not punishable by death, society still judges the lives of those who have broken into a home to have value, a citizen has no right, legal or moral, to execute another human being for that crime. Citizens are equal to each other, only the justice system has the authority to distinguish between them. Naturally defending yourself is important and should be protected but going beyond that into personal vengeance is unjustifiable.
|
Interesting piece of the ATF regarding gun shows.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf
Basically says that gangs and criminals use gun shows a lot.
And that is why we need background checks at gun shows my friends, because it leads to guns getting into the hands of criminals, gang members, and the mentally ill.
On December 17 2012 08:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:13 Kaitlin wrote:
I don't consider the "potential to contribute" aspect at all, only the fact that "someone" has broken into my home. I was only refuting an assertion that the two teens lives had value which was wasted upon killing them. I was only arguing they weren't so valuable as he might think, not that that should be a consideration at all when defending your family or property. Breaking and entering is not punishable by death, society still judges the lives of those who have broken into a home to have value, a citizen has no right, legal or moral, to execute another human being for that crime. Citizens are equal to each other, only the justice system has the authority to distinguish between them. Naturally defending yourself is important and should be protected but going beyond that into personal vengeance is unjustifiable.
He obviously believes he can judge with authority whose life is valuable and whose isn't, and thinks he can and should be the jury, judge, and executioner. He obviously thinks it is just fine to execute another human being for breaking into a home with comments like this: I believe burglars give up their right to live when they break into someone's home.
He disturbs me with his comments, as I said before. We've been talking about how the mentally ill shouldn't have guns, case and point. People who think that anyone gives up their right to live when they do something that doesn't threaten another person's life should not own a gun. Their beliefs are not capable with law, and we don't need vigilantes.
Heck, the crazy guy who killed two teens thought that if someone laughs at you if you shoot them, they give up their right to live too.
|
On December 17 2012 08:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement). objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim. Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong.
Sorry still haven't been clear on this point: I think "legal guns" are wrongly legal. As in, certain explosives you deemed "heavy duty" are not distributed for recreational use because they are "heavy duty' as you say, and thus too dangerous to be used as such. I believe many guns on the markets legally belong to this "heavy duty" category. "Significant damage and requiring a trained operator" sounds like death and operational instruction to me -- both applicable to explosives and firearms... do you disagree that many guns that readily and freely and legally available do not fit your own maxims' criterion? Or with my logic??
EDIT: I think I understand where I'm being unclear. To analogize: imagine a scale of danger level, 1 to 10. Those which are at 10s are products clearly intended only for killing, whereas 1s are intended for some silly/trivial use (though perhaps they are just very inefficient). You are saying (reiterating in hopes I rightly understand your point) that that which is, say, below a 5 on the danger scale, intended not for the intentional violence of the 10s, are sold to the public; while the big guns (no pun intended) are privatized to some degree -- kept to 'professional/industry' peoples.
Now anything could be intended and/or used for "recreational" purposes; you could defend your house with bombs or guns or spoons or whatever you want. In the extremes of either direction, intention is not really an issue worth debating (spoons are not going to be outlawed if somebody commits violent crimes with one, whereas military grade bombs aren't going to be made the tools of a citizen even if they are proven effective deterrents). The middle group gets complicated because you can debate and debate about "intent" of/for use of the tools. So spoons, knives, airsoft weapons, and whatnot will never be worried about in a real way while bombs, missiles, tripwires, will never be used (hopefully) in a real way. All I am saying is that there are plenty of guns (both in terms of types and number) out there that fit in the latter and not the former category. And there are enough guns that might be used in recreation and self-defense tha tit makes no sense to allow the rest to remain unrestricted.
|
On December 17 2012 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Interesting piece of the ATF regarding gun shows. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdfAnd that is why we need background checks at gun shows my friends, because it leads to guns getting into the hands of criminals, gang members, and the mentally ill. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:29 KwarK wrote:On December 17 2012 08:13 Kaitlin wrote:
I don't consider the "potential to contribute" aspect at all, only the fact that "someone" has broken into my home. I was only refuting an assertion that the two teens lives had value which was wasted upon killing them. I was only arguing they weren't so valuable as he might think, not that that should be a consideration at all when defending your family or property. Breaking and entering is not punishable by death, society still judges the lives of those who have broken into a home to have value, a citizen has no right, legal or moral, to execute another human being for that crime. Citizens are equal to each other, only the justice system has the authority to distinguish between them. Naturally defending yourself is important and should be protected but going beyond that into personal vengeance is unjustifiable. He obviously believes he can judge with authority whose life is valuable and whose isn't, and thinks he can and should be the jury, judge, and executioner. He obviously thinks it is just fine to execute another human being for breaking into a home with comments like this: I believe burglars give up their right to live when they break into someone's home.He disturbs me with his comments, as I said before. We've been talking about how the mentally ill shouldn't have guns, case and point. People who think that anyone gives up their right to live when they do something that doesn't threaten another person's life should not own a gun.
Yeah, gun shows, especially with the legislation involving individual private transfers, scare the hell out of me.
In my opinion, that's one of the places the oversight and regulation needs tightening up. I don't think gun shows are inherently bad, but I think that with the regulation being light in the pants, they become a severe problem for enforcement.
|
On December 17 2012 09:36 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement). objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim. Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong. Sorry still haven't been clear on this point: I think "legal guns" are wrongly legal. As in, certain explosives you deemed "heavy duty" are not distributed for recreational use because they are "heavy duty' as you say, and thus too dangerous to be used as such. I believe many guns on the markets legally belong to this "heavy duty" category. "Significant damage and requiring a trained operator" sounds like death and operational instruction to me -- both applicable to explosives and firearms... do you disagree that many guns that readily and freely and legally available do not fit your own maxims' criterion? Or with my logic??
I said I understand your point. I disagree with it. I think your criteria are unfair due to the nature of the two different items and their possible uses. Just because I disagree with you and think your argument is bad doesn't mean I think it's illogical.
|
On December 17 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 08:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement). objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim. Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong. Sorry still haven't been clear on this point: I think "legal guns" are wrongly legal. As in, certain explosives you deemed "heavy duty" are not distributed for recreational use because they are "heavy duty' as you say, and thus too dangerous to be used as such. I believe many guns on the markets legally belong to this "heavy duty" category. "Significant damage and requiring a trained operator" sounds like death and operational instruction to me -- both applicable to explosives and firearms... do you disagree that many guns that readily and freely and legally available do not fit your own maxims' criterion? Or with my logic?? I said I understand your point. I disagree with it. I think your criteria are unfair due to the nature of the two different items and their possible uses. Just because I disagree with you and think your argument is bad doesn't mean I think it's illogical.
First, I edited my last post, but I still think I (not you!) am being unclear. Second "the nature... and possible uses..." seems rather arbitrary to me, and really, I was asking you to defend that claim.
|
On December 17 2012 09:56 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 08:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it.
[quote]
There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense.
[quote]
Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states.
[quote]
They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection). Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical. People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made. And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement). objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim. Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong. Sorry still haven't been clear on this point: I think "legal guns" are wrongly legal. As in, certain explosives you deemed "heavy duty" are not distributed for recreational use because they are "heavy duty' as you say, and thus too dangerous to be used as such. I believe many guns on the markets legally belong to this "heavy duty" category. "Significant damage and requiring a trained operator" sounds like death and operational instruction to me -- both applicable to explosives and firearms... do you disagree that many guns that readily and freely and legally available do not fit your own maxims' criterion? Or with my logic?? I said I understand your point. I disagree with it. I think your criteria are unfair due to the nature of the two different items and their possible uses. Just because I disagree with you and think your argument is bad doesn't mean I think it's illogical. First, I edited my last post, but I still think I (not you!) am being unclear. Second "the nature... and possible uses..." seems rather arbitrary to me, and really, I was asking you to defend that claim.
I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing. I think it's pretty clear at this point we disagree about the usefulness of small arms.
|
You should not be allowed to carry a gun without a special permit that is hard to get
|
|
|
On December 17 2012 10:00 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:56 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 08:17 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 08:00 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:36 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 17 2012 07:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 07:14 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical.
People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made.
And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.) Castle Doctrine is different than self-defense exceptions. I was not trapping anyone. Bombs are permissible for legal reasons, but highly controlled. I don't think this is a very good analogy when you're talking fireworks and guns. Apples and Oranges, and their statutory regulations reflect their obvious differences. Registration should be mandatory, 100%, and upon every transfer. I would fully support a law that does that. However, that doesn't really solve the problem that many "illegal" weapons are stolen from legitimate owners and reported missing. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that IIRC you ended up trapped in that argument as the situation you built to exemplify subjective intent actually was practically speaking (relevant, as your argument seemed to base itself in practicality) an unusable scenario; the knife at back, etc. You ended up giving up the scenario and resorting to "it's a case-by-case thing, the logic still works" when I believe the that if you're building an example to exemplify your logic and it falls apart, it could (not necessarily but COULD) mean that in fact the logic does not, generally, stand. I meant to avert the firework argument; why are they apples and oranges?? All I am saying is that there are many types of explosives, some of which are certainly "recreational" in the intent of their production just as there are many types of guns with the same production-intent. But the generalized category of explosive is highly regulated and criminalized, while the generalized category of guns is not. I know, obviously, that fireworks are a subset that do not speak to the whole just as any given particular gun might not speak to all guns. But the categorical hierarchy (and the general danger therein) is recognized both culturally and legally when it comes to explosives, but not with guns. Agreed on registration and that it's not a solution. Maybe you misunderstood that exchange I had earlier about self-defense. I remember you actually posting that you agreed with my 3 points. The other individual stated that he thought subjective intent of the aggressor mattered legally. I used the knife example to show him that there is no way you can know what an aggressor actually intends to do before he does it, and that this was the reason for a lack of subjective intent of a criminal in self-defense. It's something you cannot know when you exercise self-defense. It was never meant to be a realistic depiction of how you might use self-defense. There are better hypos for that. The legal uses of heavy explosives are not for recreational use and are for industrial and professional uses. They are rightly regulated and restricted to those with licenses in those fields. Guns are not for industrial and professional use, they are for recreational use. Sure, heavy duty fireworks/explosives are relegated to professionals, but fireworks intended for recreational use are open to purchase by any Average Joe. We ban machine guns and other guns not intended for recreational or self-defense related purposes. We then regulate and restrict them to professionals, same as explosives. The regulatory framework for fireworks just doesn't easily transfer over because the primary use of heavy explosives and the average firearm are different. If you wanted to compare heavy explosive control to heavy anti-tank guns, fine. Comparing the same heavy explosives to a hunting rifle is unfair. I agreed with the point of subjective intent but disagreed with the actionability of the victim in any situation in which objective intent is unclear which when it comes to hand to hand (or knife to knife, gun to gun, etc.) is most always. Someone brought up the duty to retreat, which I'd offer as the counter to your principle that you have the "obligation" as you once said to fight back. By saying "heavy duty" you are imposing an arbitrary and trivializing limitation on the general category. I personally agree with you in that it's an unfair comparison (heavy explosive to hunting rifle) but the logic is, I think, rather strong. Analogically, the firearm weaponry that is available regularly and freely is rather "heavy duty" in my (and I think many's) opinions, and that fact is being absolved by saying that said firearms are recreational and/or self-defense. The fact is, by being "heavy duty" they SHOULD be considered (like heavy duty explosives) too dangerous to be regularly and freely handled by non 'industry/professional' peoples (aka military/law enforcement). objective intent is merely "reasonable belief of great bodily harm." That varies from situation to situation. The duty to retreat is implicit in a self-defense statute. You are required to have reasonable belief that your oppositional force was necessary to prevent said great bodily harm. I should note though--most courts will give any benefit of the doubt to the victim. Guns that are sold to the public are intended for recreational, self-defense, and self-sustenance purposes. Any explosive intended for the same use also sold to the public. Some require licenses, same as some guns require licenses. This is generally based on their ability to cause significant damage and requiring a trained operator and/or their lack of use for intended purposes. Comparing illegal explosives to legal guns is just stretching it. I understand where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree with your position. I think it's wrong. Sorry still haven't been clear on this point: I think "legal guns" are wrongly legal. As in, certain explosives you deemed "heavy duty" are not distributed for recreational use because they are "heavy duty' as you say, and thus too dangerous to be used as such. I believe many guns on the markets legally belong to this "heavy duty" category. "Significant damage and requiring a trained operator" sounds like death and operational instruction to me -- both applicable to explosives and firearms... do you disagree that many guns that readily and freely and legally available do not fit your own maxims' criterion? Or with my logic?? I said I understand your point. I disagree with it. I think your criteria are unfair due to the nature of the two different items and their possible uses. Just because I disagree with you and think your argument is bad doesn't mean I think it's illogical. First, I edited my last post, but I still think I (not you!) am being unclear. Second "the nature... and possible uses..." seems rather arbitrary to me, and really, I was asking you to defend that claim. I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing. I think it's pretty clear at this point we disagree about the usefulness of small arms.
Blah, I don't mean to just argue. I don't understand your point, am trying to, as I actually am not sure if I disagree with you or I just don't understand you. In regards to the point you've just made, I simply believe that I think small arms are plenty useful, but many are more dangerous than they are useful not in terms of intent with which people use them, but in terms of literal capacity for damage. And my confusion with the explosives thing was just that I don't really know in what ways you mean that guns and explosives are naturally/possibly different??
|
I agree with the sentiment that if you are breaking into homes you should reasonably expect death if a home owner catches you. When your illegally entering a home for nefarious means you can't expect to be safe... How can you know it's not the next BTK/Son of Sam/other fucked up individual coming to do horrible things to you and your loved ones.
|
On December 17 2012 10:05 KiWiKaKi wrote:
You should not be allowed to carry a gun without a special permit that is hard to get
I second this. A really really hard permit to get. Then punish really hard people who have firearms without the permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
