|
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. |
The federal govt is prohibited from compiling any sort of gun registry, good luck with getting that changed.
|
On October 08 2015 10:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 08:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
And then you have the studies that say, owning a weapon actually increases your chances to get shot in your own home. So no, owning a gun for self defense is not a good thing. It increases your chances of getting killed. This is mainly because there are 2-3 gun suicides for every gun homicide (in the USA).
No offense, but you know that's bullshit. If two people have weapons and one is a burglar, the possibility that the situation escalates is way higher than if only the burglar is armed. Killing people is after all a way bigger crime than robbing people and shooting people is a lot easier when you get the feeling that the other side is trying to kill you. Most intruder want money, not your life and the few nutballs that actually want your life (which is probably a number low enough that in ten lives you dont encounter a single one on average) aren't gonna be threatened much by you having a weapon anyways. Gun vs gun in close combat gives you a 50:50 chance on average.
So maybe you will shy away the intruder, but odds are that the situation that is chaotic to begin with (most burglars want to intrude when nobody is at home) escalates and these odds are way higher than that the intruder is actually trying to kill you to begin with.
Tbh I hate the over-regulations by modern states and everyone who buys a weapon should deep down know that the risk of getting shot increases by doing that, so I don't really care (who lives by the gun...) if that happens. It still sucks for everyone else though.
@medical issues: After seeing the statistics that about every day in the states there's a mass-shooting (not a rampage), you can't argue that every single one of them or even the majority is started by a psycho. The US isnt one big gathering place for serial killers.
On October 08 2015 12:43 Doodsmack wrote:
I don't know why we should stop at guns, why not make grenades legal for everyone? Everyone should be able to have 3 grenades on their belt, in my view. That's a much more reliable way of stopping a maniac. Besides even if grenades were illegal, psychos would still find a way to get their hands on them.
I agree, but mb hand grenades aren't enough. How much more safety would say... a tank create? I mean it's pretty much impossible to rob me on the open street while I'm driving a tank to the super-market, just imagine how many crimes that would prevent. Are you a fragile woman and afraid to go to the bank because it's getting dark? Be afraid no more!
Also t4nkz r 4wsum!
|
On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol.
What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun.
In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in.
Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start.
|
On October 08 2015 22:06 duckk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol. What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun. In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in. Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start.
One gun creates an overwhelming power difference, two guns create a "shoot first to survive" situation. Intruders are most of the times armed for the same reason you are bringing up: To threaten people who aren't armed and to protect oneself if the other side is armed.
Reasonable force is calling the police and dodging the intruder as much as possible. That way he either gets caught or escapes and nobody gets hurt (you loose some money, but money is replaceable). After that when a confrontation seems unavoidable reasonable force means threatening him from another room. It's not that rare in the US that a completely unarmed intruder gets shot on the basic of "stand your ground", which is clearly not "reasonable force". Without a gun in every household the probability of that even happening goes close to zero.
The fact that violence/crimes leading to wounds or death are a result of multiple factors doesnt change that the easy purchase of guns is one of them with little advantages. Decreasing general poverty, creating better moral education and integration into society and better healthcare for mentally ill persons are all things that have to be payed and are really hard to maintain. Just look at how much money the US throws at their drug problem and they aren't even remotely close to solve it, decreasing poverty to a reasonable level for f.e. unregistered immigrants is next to impossible. Removing guns is a thing that can be done with relative little cost within 1-2 generations.
Some parents always were and always will be incompetent, there's no changing that aside from maybe breaking the child mother connection and make child upbringing a task of society (not the state). And I'm pretty sure we aren't ready for that yet/will never be.
|
On October 08 2015 22:06 duckk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol. What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun. In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in. Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start.
This is where the problem lies. This statement is statistically, logically and real-world just not true. It's a slippery slope argument: Someone is breaking the law by breaking into your house, so they're prepared to do bad things to your family. While gut-wise that might make sense that's not how it works out in real life. Not all crimes are created equal. There are no people breaking into your house with the express intent to harm you, but they might turn to harming you when they feel threatened (like, say, by you showing up waving a firearm around).
As said, the standard response to burglars or whatever in your house is to give them what they want. Remember their face, voice, whatever, report them to the police but for god's sake don't engage them because your TV is not worth your life, and for most human beings, nor is it theirs.
|
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?!
|
im dont have clear numbers but im pretty sure the crime rate in the US is way higher than in europe so you saying "if i knew every house had a gun, i would not carelessly break in" doesnt really bother the people commiting crimes in the US
parents are not the only ones that influence a person in their life...you also have to consider friends, partners, culture and the childs/persons own personality
|
|
|
On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?!
I actually do.
At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone....
|
On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone....
That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety.
|
On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety.
thanks for sharing this information once again. a valuable contribution to this discussion.
|
On October 08 2015 22:27 Kaethis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:06 duckk wrote:On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol. What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun. In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in. Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start. This is where the problem lies. This statement is statistically, logically and real-world just not true. It's a slippery slope argument: Someone is breaking the law by breaking into your house, so they're prepared to do bad things to your family. While gut-wise that might make sense that's not how it works out in real life. Not all crimes are created equal. There are no people breaking into your house with the express intent to harm you, but they might turn to harming you when they feel threatened (like, say, by you showing up waving a firearm around). As said, the standard response to burglars or whatever in your house is to give them what they want. Remember their face, voice, whatever, report them to the police but for god's sake don't engage them because your TV is not worth your life, and for most human beings, nor is it theirs.
How can you say that someone breaking into your home with a firearm has no intent to cause bodily harm? Nobody knows what the intent of a person breaking into a home is. What I do know is that this person a) has shown a complete lack of care for the law, b) is willing to use force (breaking in, presumably through the window) c) and is likely armed with at least a basic weapon used to get in the house.
Every television in my house is mounted on a wall, heavy, bulky, and worth only a few thousand. They will be looking for where the women keep their purses and jewelry which is worth way more than anything else in the house, and is easy to take. What if kids are in other rooms, or family pets?
You honestly want to take that risk?
|
On October 08 2015 22:58 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety. thanks for sharing this information once again. a valuable contribution to this discussion.
Considering I've over a hundred posts in the thread, some longer than all your posts combined here in this thread I find this ironic. You're welcome to not read what I post, report me, or continue backseat modding. Doesn't matter to me.
|
On October 08 2015 22:58 duckk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:27 Kaethis wrote:On October 08 2015 22:06 duckk wrote:On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol. What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun. In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in. Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start. This is where the problem lies. This statement is statistically, logically and real-world just not true. It's a slippery slope argument: Someone is breaking the law by breaking into your house, so they're prepared to do bad things to your family. While gut-wise that might make sense that's not how it works out in real life. Not all crimes are created equal. There are no people breaking into your house with the express intent to harm you, but they might turn to harming you when they feel threatened (like, say, by you showing up waving a firearm around). As said, the standard response to burglars or whatever in your house is to give them what they want. Remember their face, voice, whatever, report them to the police but for god's sake don't engage them because your TV is not worth your life, and for most human beings, nor is it theirs. How can you say that someone breaking into your home with a firearm has no intent to cause bodily harm? Nobody knows what the intent of a person breaking into a home is. What I do know is that this person a) has shown a complete lack of care for the law, b) is willing to use force (breaking in, presumably through the window) c) and is likely armed with at least a basic weapon used to get in the house. Every television in my house is mounted on a wall, heavy, bulky, and worth only a few thousand. They will be looking for where the women keep their purses and jewelry which is worth way more than anything else in the house, and is easy to take. What if kids are in other rooms, or family pets? You honestly want to take that risk?
And because they are looking for purses/jewelry they are gonna kill everyone in sight? wtf?
Most likely a burglar will immediatly leave a room with people in it, if not downright leave your house the instant someone wakes up, even more likely they won't break into a house while your at home.
You are scared? Get an Alarm System or a loud dog.
|
On October 08 2015 23:00 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:58 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety. thanks for sharing this information once again. a valuable contribution to this discussion. Considering I've over a hundred posts in the thread, some longer than all your posts combined here in this thread I find this ironic. You're welcome to not read what I post, report me, or continue backseat modding. Doesn't matter to me.
No need to get mad because he is mocking your indifference to the value of human life. Some people are not willing to open fire on someone over an Iphone or TV. You're all about it and gleefully tell people you would just open fire without giving them the chance to surrender.
|
On October 08 2015 23:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 23:00 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:58 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety. thanks for sharing this information once again. a valuable contribution to this discussion. Considering I've over a hundred posts in the thread, some longer than all your posts combined here in this thread I find this ironic. You're welcome to not read what I post, report me, or continue backseat modding. Doesn't matter to me. No need to get mad because he is mocking your indifference to the value of human life. Some people are not willing to open fire on someone over an Iphone or TV. You're all about it and gleefully tell people you would just open fire without giving them the chance to surrender.
I don't think anyone here is getting mad plansix. And for clarification I wouldn't kill anyone over property. My car has been broken into twice within the last 6 months and neither time did I run outside and start shooting. And how naive can you be? Ask a home invader to surrender? You guys are children.
|
No, I shoot him thru the wall accidentally killing a family member/random drunk teenager/whoever because i'm not a child.
WTF.
|
On October 08 2015 23:14 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 23:10 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2015 23:00 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:58 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety. thanks for sharing this information once again. a valuable contribution to this discussion. Considering I've over a hundred posts in the thread, some longer than all your posts combined here in this thread I find this ironic. You're welcome to not read what I post, report me, or continue backseat modding. Doesn't matter to me. No need to get mad because he is mocking your indifference to the value of human life. Some people are not willing to open fire on someone over an Iphone or TV. You're all about it and gleefully tell people you would just open fire without giving them the chance to surrender. I don't think anyone here is getting mad plansix. And for clarification I wouldn't kill anyone over property. My car has been broken into twice within the last 6 months and neither time did I run outside and start shooting. And how naive can you be? Ask a home invader to surrender? You guys are children.
My brother would give someone the option to surrender and he saw combat in Iraq. I discussed it with him a couple days ago after our first discussion and he literally said “I’m not killing anyone in my house if I can avoid it. I have to fucking live here.”
He must be naïve though, because he isn't willing to defend his fiancee and dogs the way you are.
Do you see the flaw with your argument? You just tell everyone that doesn't have the same view as you on the use of deadly force naive.
|
On October 08 2015 22:58 duckk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:27 Kaethis wrote:On October 08 2015 22:06 duckk wrote:On October 08 2015 20:31 Kaethis wrote:On October 06 2015 23:17 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote:On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote:On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote:On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote:
....
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv?
...
Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. So this shit is some goddamn video game logic. The guards, they must be crazy ya know. In the Netherlands, as in most civilised countries, something exists called 'excessive force'. It essentially means that you use more violence than the situation warrants. It's a big deal because if the court rules you are in violation of these laws you are 100% legally responsible and as such punishable for whatever actions you took against, say, a home invader. Because guns are relatively hard to come by in the Netherlands, and concealed carry being straight-out illegal (havn't seen a gun on anyone else than a police officer in my life and I've lived in some ghetto neighbourhoods) you can assume that most people are either unarmed or at most armed with some kind of bladed weapon. Because actually killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than people seem to make it out to be you are not actually at all that much risk against the average burglar even if he's planning on hurting you to get your wallet (which is a extreme minority, I might add). This follows from the logic that even criminals are mostly rational human beings. Breaking into somone's house and being seen means you have a decent chance of getting caught and convicted. Breaking into someone's house and pulling a weapon on them means you're going to get fucked. Actually killing them means your life's essentially over the same way theirs might because you're going to land in jail for most of the rest of your life. This system works pretty well because lethal weapons are not commonplace. As I said earlier, the presence of a lethal weapon in a risky situation merely amplifies the risk because nervous people have to not only consider the fact that they might be going to jail but the possibility that they're going to get killed. While some might say that reduces the risk of getting your house broken into, conventional logic generally says that crime is mainly an economic phenomenon. People are desperate and unsupported (something which'll be more common in the U.S. because of your horrendous welfare and healthcare systems) so they feel they have no choice but to turn to stealing. The argument 'they break into my house so I'm allowed to shoot them' is the most terrible of slippery slope fallacies. It only works if think your enviroment approaches the hobbesian nature state in that everyone is 100% looking out for number 1 with no laws to govern them. If that is true, then you are living in a failed state and you need U.N. help and not internet discussions, lol. What would you say then is reasonable force if you were forced to confront someone who broke into your house? The person has already showed aggression through forcefully breaking a window to enter, and I have no idea what they intend to do, but it is not good. Yeah shooting them for no reason could be seen as excessive, but any amount of force that would not be excessive would put the entire family at risk. I agree that both parties having a firearm will increase the likelihood of a panic gunfight, but why would they need a gun if they are just trying to steal a few items and leave. Removing guns would keep this situation, but with only the burglar having a gun. In a perfect world maybe zero guns would be ideal, however there is no way to remove the current supply of guns, and probably difficult to limit new guns from being brought in. If you believe that criminals are rational ( I would argue they are not), then a gun should be a pretty strong deterrent. If guns magically vanished one day, what would stop me from breaking into any house I wanted? If i knew for certain every house had a gun, I would not carelessly break in. Honestly there are so many places to start looking rather than just removing guns. Stronger legislation, and parents actually being competent would be a good start. This is where the problem lies. This statement is statistically, logically and real-world just not true. It's a slippery slope argument: Someone is breaking the law by breaking into your house, so they're prepared to do bad things to your family. While gut-wise that might make sense that's not how it works out in real life. Not all crimes are created equal. There are no people breaking into your house with the express intent to harm you, but they might turn to harming you when they feel threatened (like, say, by you showing up waving a firearm around). As said, the standard response to burglars or whatever in your house is to give them what they want. Remember their face, voice, whatever, report them to the police but for god's sake don't engage them because your TV is not worth your life, and for most human beings, nor is it theirs. How can you say that someone breaking into your home with a firearm has no intent to cause bodily harm? Nobody knows what the intent of a person breaking into a home is. What I do know is that this person a) has shown a complete lack of care for the law, b) is willing to use force (breaking in, presumably through the window) c) and is likely armed with at least a basic weapon used to get in the house. Every television in my house is mounted on a wall, heavy, bulky, and worth only a few thousand. They will be looking for where the women keep their purses and jewelry which is worth way more than anything else in the house, and is easy to take. What if kids are in other rooms, or family pets? You honestly want to take that risk?
Consider the following: We're talking about gun control here. In most countries, people don't burgle with a firearm because A. carrying a firearm is illegal B. brandishing a firearm is even more illegal and C. you don't expect the people in the house to have a firearm because A and B. Your system's so fucked that your argument might actually be valid, but in the rest of the civilised world it would not be because they wouldn't be carrying a firearm.
Also your a) is not quite true. They have shown disregard for the portion of the law that has to do with property (haha 9/10 of the law is possession jokes inc). This doesn't mean they're murderers or rapists. I'd even wager that these are two very different subsets of people.
|
On October 08 2015 22:55 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:48 Velr wrote:On October 08 2015 22:38 heliusx wrote:
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! I actually do. At least more than for my TV, Notebook or Phone.... That's cool I guess but anyone who forces their way into my home while I'm in it has forfeited their right to safety.
You are not judge, jury and executioner in one. Criminals, even in flagrante delicto, still have rights whether you like it or not. You shooting them is both morally and legally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
