|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States24785 Posts
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot.
|
On February 03 2013 10:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. My question I'd like you to think about. Just an honest thought experiment. At what point would you say the danger to the innocent is high enough to justify killing in self defense? In other words, if 1% of break-ins with the resident home involved some act of violence against the people living there, is it justified? 10%? Or never? I assume somewhere in between, it starts making sense, and once it starts to make sense at all, it makes a lot of sense in general not to take chances with your loved ones.
I guess the percentage varies depending on the person right? Some folks like to kill others, some folks have no respect for others and will kill if they can, others are paranoiac and won't take any "chances". Personally if I'm gonna kill someone, I better have a damn good reason - and I personally think it's because I'm a decent fellow.
That said, I don't own a gun and I feel pretty secure. See if someone came into my house and I happened to be there (which is incredibly unlikely), odds are they thought the house was empty, so if I tell them someone's home, they'll almost certainly leave. If they have a gun, they probably wouldn't even shoot me unless I was armed myself.
And in the remote, essentially statistically irrelevant chance that the "burglars" are in my house, aware that there are people in the house, they're armed and ready to kill someone who's not threatening them, then I'm facing some form of psychopath... I'm probably more likely to get hit by lightning.
|
On February 03 2013 10:51 micronesia wrote:
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot.
Exactly, in fact most defensive gun uses result in no one being killed.
|
On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities.
I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me.
I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it.
On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets.
I think micronesia sums up precisely why it's ridiculous to shoot someone in this situation without me needing to.
On February 03 2013 10:51 micronesia wrote:
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot.
I would perhaps add that even having a real weapon isn't necessary. The sound of cocking or pumping (not in the homo erotic sense) is often more than enough to deter a criminal.
|
On February 03 2013 12:14 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is?
I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual?
Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do.
And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities. I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me. I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets. I think micronesia sums up precisely why it's ridiculous to shoot someone in this situation without me needing to. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:51 micronesia wrote:
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot. I would perhaps add that even having a real weapon isn't necessary. The sound of cocking or pumping (not in the homo erotic sense) is often more than enough to deter a criminal.
What an incredibly foolish tactic for defending your life. When that epicly fails (which it will) what then?
|
On February 03 2013 12:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 12:14 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:
[quote]
"maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!"
Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live.
They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison.
I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own.
Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities. I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me. I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it. On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets. I think micronesia sums up precisely why it's ridiculous to shoot someone in this situation without me needing to. On February 03 2013 10:51 micronesia wrote:
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot. I would perhaps add that even having a real weapon isn't necessary. The sound of cocking or pumping (not in the homo erotic sense) is often more than enough to deter a criminal. What an incredibly foolish tactic for defending your life. When that epicly fails (which it will) what then?
So you assume that making gun noises WILL fail? Having argued on forums for many years, I have to say that that's one of the most blatantly dishonest statements I've ever seen.
Most people will leave if they realize that someone is in the house. If that person may be armed, odds are they'll run like hell. That said, the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar are so low that you're preparing for this BS thing that simply won't happen. IMO unless you live in a ghetto (in which case, move), you can't prepare for every single thing that's a threat to your life. Why spend hundreds, or thousands on firearms, when there are so many other things that are much, much more likely to kill you.. Waste of time and money, and obvious paranoia.
The time and money you spend worrying about shit that won't happen is amazing.
|
United States24785 Posts
On February 03 2013 12:53 Djzapz wrote:
the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar Most burglars will flee if people are home. However, not all intruders are burglars, and not all burglars do what you would expect.
unless you live in a ghetto (in which case, move)
You think people live in 'the ghetto' because they were lazy when picking which neighborhood to move in to? Many people living in dangerous places do so because they currently have no choice. Telling everyone who lives in the ghetto to move is like telling a starving population "let them eat cake."
|
On February 03 2013 12:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 12:53 Djzapz wrote:
the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar Most burglars will flee if people are home. However, not all intruders are burglars, and not all burglars do what you would expect. You think people live in 'the ghetto' because they were lazy when picking which neighborhood to move in to? Many people living in dangerous places do so because they currently have no choice. Telling everyone who lives in the ghetto to move is like telling a starving population "let them eat cake."
That's true and I realize that but I figure if someone's got time to be on this forum to argue about firearm laws, they're most likely high enough on the maslow's hierarchy of needs to not be living in a ghetto or in a place where people tend to barge into random houses and kill people.
|
United States24785 Posts
On February 03 2013 13:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 12:57 micronesia wrote:On February 03 2013 12:53 Djzapz wrote:
the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar Most burglars will flee if people are home. However, not all intruders are burglars, and not all burglars do what you would expect. unless you live in a ghetto (in which case, move) You think people live in 'the ghetto' because they were lazy when picking which neighborhood to move in to? Many people living in dangerous places do so because they currently have no choice. Telling everyone who lives in the ghetto to move is like telling a starving population "let them eat cake." That's true and I realize that but I figure if someone's got time to be on this forum they're high enough on the maslow's hierarchy of needs to not be living in a ghetto or in a place where people tend to barge into random houses and kill people.
Sure I hope so, but we are talking about whether or not people should be allowed to have/use guns. The laws should not only consider us well-to-do persons; they should take into account the entire population of citizens.
|
On February 03 2013 12:14 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is?
I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual?
Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do.
And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities. I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me. I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets.
My guess would be that like a startling number of anti-gun people from other countries, you automatically project certain personality traits onto gun owners from the US. In particular throughout this thread, misogynistic impulses and racism spring to mind as expectations.
As it turns out, I'm such a sexist pig I'm a full time stay at home domesticated housedad.
I assume, dangerous though that may be, that anti-gun people have it so ingrained in their ego that they're somehow "better" than gun owners that they look for other ways to be better that also fit the stereotype of a southern redneck. Funny how people can be so prejudiced as to think other people are prejudiced.
I don't know if you're one of the ones doing that, but it's certainly the way you come off, reading something utterly absurd into what I said.
I think micronesia sums up precisely why it's ridiculous to shoot someone in this situation without me needing to. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:51 micronesia wrote:
Using a gun to deter a home invader IS an option that seems to be getting overlooked. A shotgun or other intimidating long gun will cause most intruders to flee. This is no panacea, but having a gun at home does not have to lead to all intruders getting shot. I would perhaps add that even having a real weapon isn't necessary. The sound of cocking or pumping (not in the homo erotic sense) is often more than enough to deter a criminal.
I'd suggest that if anti-gun people wouldn't jump to the extreme of calling it "murder" to shoot in a situation that the law clearly classifies as self defense, pro-gun people wouldn't spend so much time explaining why they don't see a problem shooting in that situation.
Also, while racking a shotgun or something sounds really intimidating, it's basically just a part of the same judgment call process. If you're sure you can just go for intimidation safely, odds are, you know you don't need to shoot. I wouldn't give them that much warning if I couldn't see their hands.
|
yeah but it's all too easy to take the gun at home outside and cause trouble. It's not some static defence you know.
I'd be okay if it's like... a photon cannon or something which you can't really move it outside your home
|
On February 03 2013 13:01 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 12:57 micronesia wrote:On February 03 2013 12:53 Djzapz wrote:
the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar Most burglars will flee if people are home. However, not all intruders are burglars, and not all burglars do what you would expect. unless you live in a ghetto (in which case, move) You think people live in 'the ghetto' because they were lazy when picking which neighborhood to move in to? Many people living in dangerous places do so because they currently have no choice. Telling everyone who lives in the ghetto to move is like telling a starving population "let them eat cake." That's true and I realize that but I figure if someone's got time to be on this forum they're high enough on the maslow's hierarchy of needs to not be living in a ghetto or in a place where people tend to barge into random houses and kill people. Sure I hope so, but we are talking about whether or not people should be allowed to have/use guns. The laws should not only consider us well-to-do persons; they should take into account the entire population of citizens.
Yeah but I was talking about ownership specifically, I'm not against it but I think that it's sad when people buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at others (may it be for self defense). In some situations I can understand it, but I know people who live in suburbs and they feel the need to have a weapon to defend themselves from a largely nonexistent threat.
If I said "better safe than sorry" about every single little thing that threatens my life, I'd spent all my time in money sheltering myself, literally and otherwise. Wear surgical mask, avoid anything dangerous even if it's fun, drive a big car instead of a sedan or a sports car, don't kiss the lady on the mouth she might be sick, wash my hands every 30 minutes just in case, always use a towel to touch door handles...
|
On February 03 2013 13:03 evanthebouncy! wrote:
yeah but it's all too easy to take the gun at home outside and cause trouble. It's not some static defence you know.
I'd be okay if it's like... a photon cannon or something which you can't really move it outside your home
You've never gotten a zergling surround when you moved outside your base, huh?
edit: oh wait, zerg player LOL gg
|
On February 03 2013 10:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:23 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. My question I'd like you to think about. Just an honest thought experiment. At what point would you say the danger to the innocent is high enough to justify killing in self defense? In other words, if 1% of break-ins with the resident home involved some act of violence against the people living there, is it justified? 10%? Or never? I assume somewhere in between, it starts making sense, and once it starts to make sense at all, it makes a lot of sense in general not to take chances with your loved ones. I guess the percentage varies depending on the person right? Some folks like to kill others, some folks have no respect for others and will kill if they can, others are paranoiac and won't take any "chances". Personally if I'm gonna kill someone, I better have a damn good reason - and I personally think it's because I'm a decent fellow. That said, I don't own a gun and I feel pretty secure. See if someone came into my house and I happened to be there (which is incredibly unlikely), odds are they thought the house was empty, so if I tell them someone's home, they'll almost certainly leave. If they have a gun, they probably wouldn't even shoot me unless I was armed myself. And in the remote, essentially statistically irrelevant chance that the "burglars" are in my house, aware that there are people in the house, they're armed and ready to kill someone who's not threatening them, then I'm facing some form of psychopath... I'm probably more likely to get hit by lightning.
Did I say absolutely no possible way a gun noise could possibly scare off a criminal? No, I am pointing out that it is a fools choice of defense because that only means you are safe from crime in your own house if it actually works. I am skeptical it would, but it is irrelevant for anyone who may want to carry a concealed weapon so they are also safe in the streets.
|
On February 03 2013 13:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. My question I'd like you to think about. Just an honest thought experiment. At what point would you say the danger to the innocent is high enough to justify killing in self defense? In other words, if 1% of break-ins with the resident home involved some act of violence against the people living there, is it justified? 10%? Or never? I assume somewhere in between, it starts making sense, and once it starts to make sense at all, it makes a lot of sense in general not to take chances with your loved ones. I guess the percentage varies depending on the person right? Some folks like to kill others, some folks have no respect for others and will kill if they can, others are paranoiac and won't take any "chances". Personally if I'm gonna kill someone, I better have a damn good reason - and I personally think it's because I'm a decent fellow. That said, I don't own a gun and I feel pretty secure. See if someone came into my house and I happened to be there (which is incredibly unlikely), odds are they thought the house was empty, so if I tell them someone's home, they'll almost certainly leave. If they have a gun, they probably wouldn't even shoot me unless I was armed myself. And in the remote, essentially statistically irrelevant chance that the "burglars" are in my house, aware that there are people in the house, they're armed and ready to kill someone who's not threatening them, then I'm facing some form of psychopath... I'm probably more likely to get hit by lightning. Did I say absolutely no possible way a gun noise could possibly scare off a criminal? No, I am pointing out that it is a fools choice of defense because that only means you are safe from crime in your own house if it actually works. I am skeptical it would, but it is irrelevant for anyone who may want to carry a concealed weapon so they are also safe in the streets.
Well your words were "When that epicly fails (which it will)".
What do you say about this fool here who, much like a VAST majority of the people who live around here, doesn't have a weapon. I don't feel like a fool because I don't have a firearm... Gun noises is one step above that.
|
On February 03 2013 13:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 13:40 kmillz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:17 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind? Therefore, kill the guy? I dunno I wasn't raised like that. My question I'd like you to think about. Just an honest thought experiment. At what point would you say the danger to the innocent is high enough to justify killing in self defense? In other words, if 1% of break-ins with the resident home involved some act of violence against the people living there, is it justified? 10%? Or never? I assume somewhere in between, it starts making sense, and once it starts to make sense at all, it makes a lot of sense in general not to take chances with your loved ones. I guess the percentage varies depending on the person right? Some folks like to kill others, some folks have no respect for others and will kill if they can, others are paranoiac and won't take any "chances". Personally if I'm gonna kill someone, I better have a damn good reason - and I personally think it's because I'm a decent fellow. That said, I don't own a gun and I feel pretty secure. See if someone came into my house and I happened to be there (which is incredibly unlikely), odds are they thought the house was empty, so if I tell them someone's home, they'll almost certainly leave. If they have a gun, they probably wouldn't even shoot me unless I was armed myself. And in the remote, essentially statistically irrelevant chance that the "burglars" are in my house, aware that there are people in the house, they're armed and ready to kill someone who's not threatening them, then I'm facing some form of psychopath... I'm probably more likely to get hit by lightning. Did I say absolutely no possible way a gun noise could possibly scare off a criminal? No, I am pointing out that it is a fools choice of defense because that only means you are safe from crime in your own house if it actually works. I am skeptical it would, but it is irrelevant for anyone who may want to carry a concealed weapon so they are also safe in the streets. Well your words were "When that epicly fails (which it will)". What do you say about this fool here who, much like a VAST majority of the people who live around here, doesn't have a weapon. I don't feel like a fool because I don't have a firearm... Gun noises is one step above that.
I don't own a firearm and I never said not owning one makes you a fool, are you implying you use gun noises to ward criminals?
I worded that poorly, I should have said most of the time, because I don't have data that would prove its plausibility to be enough to justify taking away anothers right to simply have an actual gun, which is probably much more intimidating and damn near gauranteed to be more effective, even without the need to shoot. I've already pointed out the defensive gun usage statistics to show that guns uses prevent much more violence/crime than they cause it. I will link them again for you here:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
|
On February 03 2013 13:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 12:14 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:
[quote]
"maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!"
Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live.
They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison.
I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own.
Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities. I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me. I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it. On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets. My guess would be that like a startling number of anti-gun people from other countries, you automatically project certain personality traits onto gun owners from the US. In particular throughout this thread, misogynistic impulses and racism spring to mind as expectations. As it turns out, I'm such a sexist pig I'm a full time stay at home domesticated housedad. I assume, dangerous though that may be, that anti-gun people have it so ingrained in their ego that they're somehow "better" than gun owners that they look for other ways to be better that also fit the stereotype of a southern redneck. Funny how people can be so prejudiced as to think other people are prejudiced. I don't know if you're one of the ones doing that, but it's certainly the way you come off, reading something utterly absurd into what I said.
Why are you getting so hung up about this? I made the original comment in an aside. I apologised if it wasn't intended. It's the internet - I can't tell if you using a phrase like "tiny single mother" is meant to be patronising or not. I've hardly sat here and thought "man, this guy is clearly a gun toting redneck lunatic" have I?
In fact the only thing I've thought about you is that you are far too aggressive and far too eager to want to shoot someone.
|
On February 04 2013 01:50 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 13:02 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 12:14 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:38 -Zen- wrote:On February 03 2013 10:23 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 10:07 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible.
The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family.
I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile.
I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes.
If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them. Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so. If you believe I should even confront him, you believe I should have a right to be armed effectively. What if "I" in this case wasn't me. What if it's a tiny little single mom? What's "effective" there?
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
You manage to quote the bit that explains that I'm right in your effort to prove I'm wrong? You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. They could be armed. They're already committing major crimes, you think they're worried about adding a charge in by having a weapon of some kind?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation? So you're saying (in a rather sexist tone, I might add) that everyone should have a gun? So single mothers can shoot possible intruders into their homes? Does that seem sensical? I posted the part of US law and am questioning you about it. You said: You have the right to use deadly force during that burglary because you do not know. Even if you're 100% sure it's "just" intended to be a robbery, you do not know what their response to your presence would be. This is wrong. The law states you have the right to deadly force during burglary: "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" Really, it's fallicious for both of us, because neither of us are in this situation. You can't reasonably fear imminent peril of death right now - or say that you would in a situation where you are being burgled - because you're not in that situation. You want to say that you would, because you want to argue against me. Likewise, I can't honestly say I wouldn't, because I'm not in that situation. If I had a gun and there was someone robbing me, can I assuredly say I wouldn't shoot him? No. On February 03 2013 10:14 JingleHell wrote:
Ignoring the part where I don't believe gun control in and of itself is a miracle cure for crime, how exactly do you expect new laws to stop criminals from having guns when there's already huge saturation?
I have never said it would be a "miracle cure". And as to whether it would reduce the saturation is another problem entirely from the one at hand. If you are happy to move on to that discussion, I am for you. It's honestly ridiculous as well how you try and call out his argument as being "sexist". Honestly? I thought it was generally accepted as being true that woman are generally physically weaker than men. What if the same situation was a pregnant woman, do you think she physically would be able to tackle an intruder? Or is that a "sexist" thing for me to say? Your last point about "reducing the saturation" is nothing more than you hiding from a perfectly valid point. You make an argument while completely disregarding one of the key arguments against you. What would your suggestion do other than make those who abide the law more vulnerable? Those who already disregarded the laws are not going to happily hand in their weapons to the authorities. I didn't call out his argument as sexist, I called out the way he said it. It came off - most likely due to the use of the word "tiny" - as belittling and patronising. I understand what he meant, which was why I made the sexism comment in an aside, and proceeded to ask what the message behind the point was, which he neglected to tell me. I appreciate the assertion, but it is hardly hiding - as I clearly said, they are two different issues, and I would be more than happy to debate the other if we were finished with the one. I was hardly shying away from it. On February 03 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
Pragmatism isn't sexism. It's not belittling to acknowledge that they face a form of violation from home invasion that I'm less likely to, and that women tend to have less muscle mass than men. With all else being equal assuming no weapons, that difference in size is critical in self defense.
Well, I've already chosen not to accept the options of potentially endangering my family, so yeah. I'd shoot. Pragmatism.
It was the way you phrased it. Perhaps it wasn't intentional to sound so patronising, and if so I apologise. It's not a big deal, hence the brackets. My guess would be that like a startling number of anti-gun people from other countries, you automatically project certain personality traits onto gun owners from the US. In particular throughout this thread, misogynistic impulses and racism spring to mind as expectations. As it turns out, I'm such a sexist pig I'm a full time stay at home domesticated housedad. I assume, dangerous though that may be, that anti-gun people have it so ingrained in their ego that they're somehow "better" than gun owners that they look for other ways to be better that also fit the stereotype of a southern redneck. Funny how people can be so prejudiced as to think other people are prejudiced. I don't know if you're one of the ones doing that, but it's certainly the way you come off, reading something utterly absurd into what I said. Why are you getting so hung up about this? I made the original comment in an aside. I apologised if it wasn't intended. It's the internet - I can't tell if you using a phrase like "tiny single mother" is meant to be patronising or not. I've hardly sat here and thought "man, this guy is clearly a gun toting redneck lunatic" have I? In fact the only thing I've thought about you is that you are far too aggressive and far too eager to want to shoot someone.
You'd sound a lot more convincing about not trying to read specific character traits into gun owners if you hadn't chopped off the half of my quote that answers the last sentence.
|
On February 03 2013 13:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 13:01 micronesia wrote:On February 03 2013 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On February 03 2013 12:57 micronesia wrote:On February 03 2013 12:53 Djzapz wrote:
the odds that you'd be killed in your own house by a burglar Most burglars will flee if people are home. However, not all intruders are burglars, and not all burglars do what you would expect. unless you live in a ghetto (in which case, move) You think people live in 'the ghetto' because they were lazy when picking which neighborhood to move in to? Many people living in dangerous places do so because they currently have no choice. Telling everyone who lives in the ghetto to move is like telling a starving population "let them eat cake." That's true and I realize that but I figure if someone's got time to be on this forum they're high enough on the maslow's hierarchy of needs to not be living in a ghetto or in a place where people tend to barge into random houses and kill people. Sure I hope so, but we are talking about whether or not people should be allowed to have/use guns. The laws should not only consider us well-to-do persons; they should take into account the entire population of citizens. Yeah but I was talking about ownership specifically, I'm not against it but I think that it's sad when people buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at others (may it be for self defense). In some situations I can understand it, but I know people who live in suburbs and they feel the need to have a weapon to defend themselves from a largely nonexistent threat.If I said "better safe than sorry" about every single little thing that threatens my life, I'd spent all my time in money sheltering myself, literally and otherwise. Wear surgical mask, avoid anything dangerous even if it's fun, drive a big car instead of a sedan or a sports car, don't kiss the lady on the mouth she might be sick, wash my hands every 30 minutes just in case, always use a towel to touch door handles...
I'm sure the people at Sandy Hook felt it was a largely nonexistent threat, and in truth it is an extremely rare occurrence. To think "it could never happen to me" is a silly reason to not be prepared.
I would not call a home intruder a "single little thing that threatens" your life.
|
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
