|
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 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe.
So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected.
|
On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people.
I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon)
Show nested quote +Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?!
But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force.
Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Chicago. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns.
|
On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate.
If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Show nested quote +Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns.
To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns.
The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land.
|
On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected.
Shooting someone is the best defense? That's just ludicrous.. I mean. You can put him at gunpoint and either call the police or throw him out. Killing him should be the last thing you even think about. Can't believe you'd say that killing someone is the best defense.
|
On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?!
But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated.
If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.
I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?!
And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that. I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense. Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land.
I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can.
|
On December 19 2012 08:20 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected. Shooting someone is the best defense? That's just ludicrous.. I mean. You can put him at gunpoint and either call the police or throw him out. Killing him should be the last thing you even think about. Can't believe you'd say that killing someone is the best defense.
Hold someone at gunpoint? lmao. We aren't talking about a movie or video game.
|
On December 19 2012 08:20 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected. Shooting someone is the best defense? That's just ludicrous.. I mean. You can put him at gunpoint and either call the police or throw him out. Killing him should be the last thing you even think about. Can't believe you'd say that killing someone is the best defense.
Perhaps one day your neighbor will have an intruder, and the neighbor catches him, and just let's him go, as you suggest. The next night, your house is his target. He breaks in and kidnaps your 3 year old girl. Congratulations. Alternatively, your neighbor calls the police and he's arrested for hmm, well, he's been on drugs and convinces people he thought it was his house, so he gets a slap on the wrist. Then, he comes after your house as before. Nope. Not at my house at least.
|
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/utah_elementary_school_student_brought_gun_to_school/
Utah Fox affiliate Fox 13 reported that yesterday, a sixth grade student brought a .22-caliber pistol to West Kearns Elementary School, claiming that his parents encouraged him to bring the gun along as protection in response to the Newtown, Conn., shootings. He reportedly showed it to one of his classmates during recess. Sixth grader Isabel Rios said, “At recess, he pointed a gun to my head and said he was going to kill me.”
District officials said that they didn’t know about the weapon until 3 p.m., however. “Once the teacher knew there was a weapon in the classroom, the student was apprehended in 30 to 45 seconds and immediately brought down to the office and the police were on site within five to 10 minutes,” said Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley.
Parents were notified around 5:30, though many had learned the news from their children before then.
The student has been suspended and taken into a juvenile facility.
|
On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns.
To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:43 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that.
I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense.
Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic. The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can.
Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out.
|
On December 19 2012 08:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:20 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected. Shooting someone is the best defense? That's just ludicrous.. I mean. You can put him at gunpoint and either call the police or throw him out. Killing him should be the last thing you even think about. Can't believe you'd say that killing someone is the best defense. Perhaps one day your neighbor will have an intruder, and the neighbor catches him, and just let's him go, as you suggest. The next night, your house is his target. He breaks in and kidnaps your 3 year old girl. Congratulations. Alternatively, your neighbor calls the police and he's arrested for hmm, well, he's been on drugs and convinces people he thought it was his house, so he gets a slap on the wrist. Then, he comes after your house as before. Nope. Not at my house at least.
/tinfoil
|
On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated.
If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.
I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?!
And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out.
Point is: American gun policy is medieval.
From wikipedia: firearm-related death rate
USA: 9.20
Sweden: 1.47
|
Hi all, I joined in the debate in this thread and have taken an interest in gun control policy world over and came upon this case study of the ban "of semi-automatic weapons, the new gun laws banned rapid-fire long guns, specifically to reduce their availability for mass shootings," in Australia.
The more I learn about the style of weapon that the Lanza kid used the more disturbed I am by the similarities it bares to modern military equiptment, and suggests to me that the 'guns are tools' argument does not cover weapons like this. This is because while a high caliber, bolt action weapon has the purpose of hunting big game, a shotty for birds etc., the Bushmaster was labeled a "modern sporting rifle" seems to bare all the hallmarks of a military weapon. One which the primary use of is as a tool for killing. I don't see the reason that the style of weapon should remain on the market. All the possible recreational uses for it are covered by other, less deadly, weapons.
I found it interesting and was wondering how the Americans in this thread feel about a policy like this being implemented in the US as a reaction to the shootings.
http://qz.com/37303/fifteen-things-to-know-about-australias-incredibly-effective-gun-clampdown/
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated.
If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.
I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?!
And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it. There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:56 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
The "I really like big shiny explosions." part was there for a reason. My purpose for cruise missiles is to make big explosions not defend myself against somebody. Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it. A: Capable of providing for all maintenance. B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient. C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
Your argument still is silly. Just because you can use something for other purposes than killing doesn't mean we should allow them for citizens without thinking twice and maybe enforcing restrictions.
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out.
The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people.
|
On December 19 2012 08:39 Jaevlaterran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:
[quote]
There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents.
If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it.
A: Capable of providing for all maintenance.
B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient.
C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
[quote]
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. Point is: American gun policy is medieval. From wikipedia: firearm-related death rate USA: 9.20 Sweden: 1.47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
5.5 of this death rate is suicide.
the murder rate is:
USA: 3.7
Sweden: 0.19
(per 100 000)
|
On December 19 2012 08:39 Jaevlaterran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:
[quote]
There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents.
If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it.
A: Capable of providing for all maintenance.
B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient.
C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
[quote]
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. Point is: American gun policy is medieval. From wikipedia: firearm-related death rate USA: 9.20 Sweden: 1.47
Before anyone misinterprets these stats you should be clear...
US total gun deaths...................................9.20 per 100k
US total gun homicides...............................3.70 per 100k
US total gun suicides.................................5.50 per 100k
US total gun accidents resulting in death.......0.27 per 100k
|
On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected.
Are you for real? Oo
|
On December 19 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:19 tokicheese wrote:
[quote]
There's a forestry road about an hours drive from where I live and it's the go to place for some shooting in the area. Easily hundreds of people go up there every weekend to shoot and there are no incidents.
If you can't see the difference between a gun and a cruise missile idk what to say... another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring diplomatic side of things, I suppose, if you could demonstrate a list of criteria, I'd be ok with it.
A: Capable of providing for all maintenance.
B: Maintain sufficient land to mitigate risk of collateral damage, and sufficient insurance to cover accidents. A few billion should be sufficient.
C: Demonstrate sufficient training, psychological culpability, etc that I've endorsed as requisites for gun owners, with more stringent checks.
[quote]
My argument isn't silly in the slightest, because that wasn't my argument. Ignoring the part where I've repeatedly endorsed better enforcement and restrictions, my actual argument was that the very commonly stated anti-gun sentiment of "Guns are for people who intend to kill" (I'm sure if you look you can find a few examples of that in this thread, if you can stand the tedium) falls flat if you can state confidently that someone who is already demonstrating criminal behavior has a weapon for an intent other than killing. Cool. So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people.
KwarK, much <3, but it's not vigilante, as the law provides for it.
Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority...
If the law considers it self defense, it's down to whether the laws need re-working. They desperately do, complete with better oversight, but if it's a scenario where it's considered self defense under the law, it's not murder either. Murder, after all, is a legal term, which I assume you agree with.
Frankly, at the least regarding deadly force as self defense, we should have a much higher requirement to show evidence of imminent threat to well-being. That aside, if there is a reasonable threat to you as an individual, I see nothing wrong with deadly force as self defense.
It comes down to that "clear and present danger" thing our politicians aren't always so good with.
|
On December 19 2012 08:46 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected. Are you for real? Oo
Violent home invasions are much more common in certain areas of the US that in European countries or even Canada so this is a very real fear.
|
On December 19 2012 08:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:20 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:On December 19 2012 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:
A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. So naive. A burglar is only a burglar after they've left. Their intentions are unclear not only to the homeowner, but even to themselves, as they cannot even predict what is going to happen. Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is the safest defense for you and your family. However, since you obviously disagree, you are also free to offer him coffee while he rapes your daughter, as long as his precious life is respected. Shooting someone is the best defense? That's just ludicrous.. I mean. You can put him at gunpoint and either call the police or throw him out. Killing him should be the last thing you even think about. Can't believe you'd say that killing someone is the best defense. Perhaps one day your neighbor will have an intruder, and the neighbor catches him, and just let's him go, as you suggest. The next night, your house is his target. He breaks in and kidnaps your 3 year old girl. Congratulations. Alternatively, your neighbor calls the police and he's arrested for hmm, well, he's been on drugs and convinces people he thought it was his house, so he gets a slap on the wrist. Then, he comes after your house as before. Nope. Not at my house at least.
Inventing imaginary situations where you're right isn't particularly clever. How about this:
The neighbor catches the burglar and throws him out with the threat of firearm. It turns out the burglar is from a poor neighborhood and resorted to selling stolen goods to keep him afloat. However, he has no interest in dying or being maimed, and since the neighbor has clearly demonstrated that he at the very least is in possession of a firearm, the burglar decides that it would not be in his best interest to return to the same house.
Woah.
|
United States43964 Posts
On December 19 2012 08:47 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 08:27 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:21 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:19 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 08:16 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 08:03 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:39 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 07:32 tokicheese wrote:On December 19 2012 07:28 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
another one who doesn't get the point. Is my english that bad today? What is your point? You compared a multi-million dollar military explosive device with no recreational use to a responsible person who likes to go out in the bush and fire off a couple rounds. Can you not see the difference? Well all assault weapons had some 50 years ago a military use. And who are you to decide that explosive devices have no recreational use? Who says . . . etc. My point was that Jinglehells argument about "can be used for something other than killing thus give it to the people" is not a good one. If you want to think of a better example, please go ahead. That actually isn't my argument at all. You're STILL ignoring what I actually was saying. I'm not even interested in that point right now. Whether people should own weapons for recreation is utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is a COMMON argument against guns, that argument is "guns, or X guns are only intended to kill people", and I demonstrated that if we can ignore that concept with the person engaging in criminal activity, directing it at law abiding citizens is manifestly absurd. And if we're willing to consider that an armed intruder might not intend to kill anyone, we should certainly be willing to consider that an armed civilian might not intend to kill people. I'm not honestly sure how much simpler I can make this, but it's pretty straight forward logic. I'm not quite sure what your point is. A M16 is "clearly" designed to kill people but this doesn't imply that everyone with a M16 wants to kill people. I still think the streets would be safer if people don't run around with M16. (or any other fully automatic weapon) Edit: On December 19 2012 07:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 07:07 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Cool.
So if you drive over the speed limit while armed I can justifiably shoot you in self defense because you are an armed criminal. And I'm getting accused of ridiculous arguments. You'd have to check local statutes. Generally, if your life isn't distinctly in danger, lethal force is illegal. So, if it's a typical traffic misdemeanor offense, no. Good job attempting to obfuscate things since you don't have an actual response. He has a point though. A burglar is not a murderer. (at least in my country, see above). Thus shooting someone just because he enters your house is not failsafe. Well, if humans could all read minds, we'd know which situations call specifically for deadly force. We aren't. It's erring on the side of caution. Would avoiding killing be good? Yes. But I don't put the intruder in my house. If I did, they wouldn't be an intruder, and since I don't know what their intents or responses to my presence are, I don't particularly see how this is relevant. It's actually possible to be charged as a criminal if you overreact or use demonstrably excessive force. Well this seems like a social problem: Where I live I'm quite sure that burglars don't shoot at me but run away. It seems like you can't be so sure if you live in a problematic part of Boston. So I see no need to carry a gun to defend myself. Waking up suffices. So imo the aim should be to give people the feel of safety instead of giving them more guns. The aim should be to give people the "feeling of safety" ? WTF, man. Take a look around the real world. Not everybody lives in your fantasy land. I can easily turn this around: How fucked up is either your country or your mind that you fear a burglar, who wants your money and a quick escape, rapes your daughter and shoots you in the face. because he can. Ok, so, my country is fucked up. It is what it is. Point is, break into a home in America, and you're lucky to leave with your life. Get the word out. The law does not punish breaking and entering with death. What you are advocating is that citizens indulge in vigilante executions. Oddly enough I think the legal punishment for doing that is actually death in a number of states. You might want to reconsider before you start murdering people. KwarK, much <3, but it's not vigilante, as the law provides for it. Show nested quote +Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority... If the law considers it self defense, it's down to whether the laws need re-working. They desperately do, complete with better oversight, but if it's a scenario where it's considered self defense under the law, it's not murder either. Murder, after all, is a legal term, which I assume you agree with. Frankly, at the least regarding deadly force as self defense, we should have a much higher requirement to show evidence of imminent threat to well-being. That aside, if there is a reasonable threat to you as an individual, I see nothing wrong with deadly force as self defense. It comes down to that "clear and present danger" thing our politicians aren't always so good with.
What Kaitlin is advocating is that the homeowner should attempt to execute anyone unlawfully within their home in order to create a deterrent, regardless of the threat they pose to their person or property. Earlier in the topic he advocated pulling up a chair and watching as a wounded victim bled out rather than calling the police because if you called the police they might survive whereas if you finished them off then it would be viewed as murder. It is contrary to both the letter of the law and the intent of the law which is designed to protect the individual, not create opportunities where you might be able to murder someone and get away with it. Ultimately you simply do not have the right to kill another man, there are conditions under which it might be necessary but because you think you can get away with it or because he was on your property are not acceptable reasons.
Society has created a justice system based around a single authority empowered to judge people and mete out punishment, extrajudicial force may sometimes be necessary but is never legitimate and should be minimised when possible. If the collective decision of society is that the guy deserves to die then it will judge him accordingly and he will be executed legally, if the collective decision is that he does not deserve to die then you have no right to execute him yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
