|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 08 2015 23:28 Kaethis 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. 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.
No, the law in on his side in his state. He can shoot them without warning if they break into his house.
|
...... I have no words. Carry on then.
|
On October 08 2015 23:28 Kaethis 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. 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.
You can say its a grey area morally for a lot of people. You're wrong about everything else in your post though.
|
Especially if you value the lives of your family you shouldn't start shooting people in your house. Chances are very high that you are still half asleep and it is actually not a burglar, but your wife or child. If you give them a chance to surrender that situation is resolved. If you shoot at every dark figure in your house, it is also resolved, but you are now down a wife or a child and possibly on your way to prison.
|
On October 08 2015 23:28 Kaethis 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. 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.
This argument is invalid. Also please shut about "uncivilized".
The person breaking in, in the first place, is the one breaking the law. Since the burglar in the first place isn't respecting the law, how should the citizen know that the burglar won't go for his life? The citizen can't. The citizen can't know if the burglar is carrying an illegal gun, a weapon (knives kill people, tyvm), if he has 10 buddies ready to jump.
The citizen has no way at all of protecting himself and his family, he is at the total mercy of the intruder. The intruder is by default a criminal who doesn't respect the law. Why would you place the law abiding citizen under the intruder?
Absolutely terrible.
In short, you're arguing that the right to legitimate self-defense is an invalid one. That's absolutely terrible. No. Don't. Just because the Netherlands applies this doesn't mean it's fucking right.
Especially if you value the lives of your family you shouldn't start shooting people in your house. Chances are very high that you are still half asleep and it is actually not a burglar, but your wife or child. If you give them a chance to surrender that situation is resolved. If you shoot at every dark figure in your house, it is also resolved, but you are now down a wife or a child and possibly on your way to prison.
What a dumb argument. I've had my home broken into before with my family there, my father knew exactly that it wasn't me or anyone else of my family when they came upon him. Disgusting little shits. To think that people are so keen to defend criminals and place actual people on the backfoot.
"no tommy, you aren't allowed to defend your own life, nor that of your family. that's not your right. let big brother do that for you"
despicable
|
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?
I have a) a complete lack of care for the law except for it's enforcers, I'm b) willing to use force on objects and c) I've had a few knifes, hammers, screwdrivers and other tools sufficient to get through a window in my hand. I never intended to harm anyone to the point where I was close to actually inflicting a wound.
German statistics, since Germany is a relatively large country (large sample size) where weapons are forbidden and it's easier to search for them for me:
2014 we apparently had roughly 230.000 attempted burglaries, 140k of them successful (number's been rising for a couple of years now). I didnt find a statistic which precisely described the number of victims during burglaries. But the number of murders during robberies (I'd argue that burglaries where the inhabitant of the house is met is defined as such a robbery) was 24. 24 as a decimal value, no thousand attached, roughly 0.017%, ignoring the amount of robberies on the street, in the super market or in the bank.
Even if that statistic isnt precisely what we were looking for, the numbers of murders and homocide (including the attempts) was 2.621. So still nothing compared to the number of burglaries.
Considering these numbers I'm 100% positive putting my live into the hands of a burglar if the situation arises. I'm also 100% sure that any resistance is going to make matters worse correlating to the amount of resistance. Don't try to be the hero, get out of the way, let the man or woman do their job and be happy that no harm was done to anyone.
As Kaelis pointed out however this is an example of a state where carrying weapons is illegal, so our burglars are probably less heavy armed as yours and a lot less itchy than yours, because yours might get shot while they are trying to steal some jewelry.
|
On October 08 2015 23:40 Simberto wrote:
Especially if you value the lives of your family you shouldn't start shooting people in your house. Chances are very high that you are still half asleep and it is actually not a burglar, but your wife or child. If you give them a chance to surrender that situation is resolved. If you shoot at every dark figure in your house, it is also resolved, but you are now down a wife or a child and possibly on your way to prison.
Yes this is a possibility for some people. There are only two people who live in my house and we sleep in the same bed. Its one of the reasons a lot of people will use #4 buck in a 12ga for home defense, I prefer a .40 or 9mm though because over penetration simply isn't a factor in my house.
|
United States43187 Posts
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.
That's actually not up to you in a society. Any more than the weird guys who go "girls who let me pay for their dinner and buy them drinks have forfeited their right to decide they don't subsequently owe me something". You can decide these things based on any conditions you like but it doesn't make it a universal truth. Of course in many areas of the US enough people believe it that it is acceptable but that doesn't mean it's anything more than that. Where you are the law backs up your view that other humans can voluntarily forfeit their rights and therefore justify your disregard for their lives but just because it's law doesn't mean it's right.
|
On October 08 2015 23:44 Incognoto wrote:
The citizen has no way at all of protecting himself and his family, he is at the total mercy of the intruder. The intruder is by default a criminal who doesn't respect the law. Why would you place the law abiding citizen under the intruder?
He is not placing the law abiding citizen under the intruder - he keeps them at the same level. Self-defence always has to be apropriated to the situation, which is what I think he is talking about. While the definition of "apropriated" differs according to the situation and the law, self defence pretty much everywhere has it limits.
|
On October 08 2015 23:47 Blackfeather wrote:
Considering these numbers I'm 100% positive putting my live into the hands of a burglar if the situation arises. I'm also 100% sure that any resistance is going to make matters worse correlating to the amount of resistance. Don't try to be the hero, get out of the way, let the man or woman do their job and be happy that no harm was done to anyone.
Disgusting. Just because you don't care for your life or that of your family's does not mean that you should deprieve others the right to defend themselves.
Who cares about statistics. Why are you purposefully fucking agreeing to place your life into the hands of someone who doesn't give a shit about the law in the first place? They're thieves, not fucking saints.
Disgusting, just disgusting, I'm so appalled that there are people out there who legitimately think that human beings should not have the right to defend their own lives.
|
You are oversimplifying the argument. None of us are claiming that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I at least am claiming however that there is something like appropriate force and inappropriate force. I am completely fine with you beating the guy breaking into your house up and throwing him out on his ass, but also know from statistics (and a friend who's a police officer) that that is a bad choice to make if you're concerned about your safety.
Also, please refrain from ad hominem. We're trying to have a discussion, not calling eachother insects.
|
Most states in the US punish home invasion(entering a house at night, while armed) heavily(20-30 years). They also have different charges for breaking in during the day. This has the overall effect that most criminals that break into homes are unarmed and do so during the day, because they are aware it is less risky. But those over nationwide stats taken over the years and I wouldn’t rely on them if someone broke into my house.
But at the end of the day, most criminals are not looking to break into homes with people in them. It increases the risk. So if they do, they are either think the house is vacant or broke in with more violent intent. But the majority of the time it is the first one.
But if they broke in to be violent, I wouldn’t open fire on them because they would likely shoot back.
|
Zurich15353 Posts
On October 08 2015 23:47 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 22:58 duckk wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I have a) a complete lack of care for the law except for it's enforcers, I'm b) willing to use force on objects and c) I've had a few knifes, hammers, screwdrivers and other tools sufficient to get through a window in my hand. I never intended to harm anyone to the point where I was close to actually inflicting a wound. German statistics, since Germany is a relatively large country (large sample size) where weapons are forbidden and it's easier to search for them for me: 2014 we apparently had roughly 230.000 attempted burglaries, 140k of them successful (number's been rising for a couple of years now). I didnt find a statistic which precisely described the number of victims during burglaries. But the number of murders during robberies (I'd argue that burglaries where the inhabitant of the house is met is defined as such a robbery) was 24. 24 as a decimal value, no thousand attached, roughly 0.017%, ignoring the amount of robberies on the street, in the super market or in the bank. Even if that statistic isnt precisely what we were looking for, the numbers of murders and homocide (including the attempts) was 2.621. So still nothing compared to the number of burglaries. Considering these numbers I'm 100% positive putting my live into the hands of a burglar if the situation arises. I'm also 100% sure that any resistance is going to make matters worse correlating to the amount of resistance. Don't try to be the hero, get out of the way, let the man or woman do their job and be happy that no harm was done to anyone. As Kaelis pointed out however this is an example of a state where carrying weapons is illegal, so our burglars are probably less heavy armed as yours and a lot less itchy than yours, because yours might get shot while they are trying to steal some jewelry.
Germany is a very peculiar case. Comparatively high rate of gun ownership, fairly lax ownership laws ("assault weapons" OK etc), very robust self defense laws (no necessity for warning or appropriate use of force, etc), at the same time largely not possible to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense, extensive licensing, no carry licenses.
And virtually no gun homicides.
|
United States43187 Posts
On October 08 2015 23:51 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 23:47 Blackfeather wrote:
Considering these numbers I'm 100% positive putting my live into the hands of a burglar if the situation arises. I'm also 100% sure that any resistance is going to make matters worse correlating to the amount of resistance. Don't try to be the hero, get out of the way, let the man or woman do their job and be happy that no harm was done to anyone.
Disgusting. Just because you don't care for your life or that of your family's does not mean that you should deprieve others the right to defend themselves. Who cares about statistics. Why are you purposefully fucking agreeing to place your life into the hands of someone who doesn't give a shit about the law in the first place? They're thieves, not fucking saints. Disgusting, just disgusting, I'm so appalled that there are people out there who legitimately think that human beings should not have the right to defend their own lives.
We're not talking about the right to defend yourself against deadly force. We're talking about the right to engage in an assault with a deadly weapon on an intruder without giving them warning in the defence of property. You're having an argument against an opponent you invented and it's pretty dumb.
heliusx maintains he has the right to shoot an intruder who he believes is just seeking to deprive him of property. Many of us liberal Europeans are arguing that while he is legally in the clear where he is that is pretty fucked up. The penalty for burglary is not death and even if it were it would still not be okay for the victim to carry out that sentence without a judge or a jury convicting the guy. You don't get to administer your own justice. You can defend yourself using proportional force but it is always the lesser of two evils, you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you, it is never justice. If you think someone is a burglar then you call the police and you let them put the guy in front of a jury of his peers because that's how a civilized society works.
|
Isn't German legislation for actually getting a gun incredibly sctrict though? I remember that you can't even own one of these airsoft guns without a license and getting a license requires both you being over a certain age and having gone through an extensive psych evaluation.
|
On October 08 2015 23:54 Kaethis wrote:
You are oversimplifying the argument. None of us are claiming that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I at least am claiming however that there is something like appropriate force and inappropriate force. I am completely fine with you beating the guy breaking into your house up and throwing him out on his ass, but also know from statistics (and a friend who's a police officer) that that is a bad choice to make if you're concerned about your safety.
Also, please refrain from ad hominem. We're trying to have a discussion, not calling eachother insects.
You aren't beating up a guy breaking into your home, not when they're armed with a knife or similar weapon. That's the best way to get killed.
However you can't be sure that someone won't break into your home if they know that they'll meet someone with a firearm and who is legally entitled to do it. See plansix's argument about burglars only breaking and entering when no one is home. That's because citizens are allowed to protect their lives with lethal force.
In Europe however you are forced to trust your life to the criminal who breaks and enters into your home. How people can defend this is beyond me, I think I'll appropriately call it disgusting because I find terrible that people have so little regard to human lives and security. That's just me.
|
United States43187 Posts
On October 09 2015 00:02 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 23:54 Kaethis wrote:
You are oversimplifying the argument. None of us are claiming that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I at least am claiming however that there is something like appropriate force and inappropriate force. I am completely fine with you beating the guy breaking into your house up and throwing him out on his ass, but also know from statistics (and a friend who's a police officer) that that is a bad choice to make if you're concerned about your safety.
Also, please refrain from ad hominem. We're trying to have a discussion, not calling eachother insects. You aren't beating up a guy breaking into your home, not when they're armed with a knife or similar weapon. That's the best way to get killed. However you can't be sure that someone won't break into your home if they know that they'll meet someone with a firearm and who is legally entitled to do it. See plansix's argument about burglars only breaking and entering when no one is home. That's because citizens are allowed to protect their lives with lethal force. In Europe however you are forced to trust your life to the criminal who breaks and enters into your home. How people can defend this is beyond me, I think I'll appropriately call it disgusting because I find terrible that people have so little regard to human lives and security. That's just me.
You're not reading what other people are writing. You're just reading what you think the argument you're having is and then arguing against yourself.
|
On October 09 2015 00:02 Kaethis wrote:
Isn't German legislation for actually getting a gun incredibly sctrict though? I remember that you can't even own one of these airsoft guns without a license and getting a license requires both you being over a certain age and having gone through an extensive psych evaluation.
i just know some stuff regarding hunting rifles. you have to get a hunting license, a weapon license and you are required to carry around the weapon license and the key to the locker your gun is stored in at all times
|
From the german WaffGesetz:
-copied wrong part. German isn't what it used to be. Still
Need to be 18, trustworthy, capable, knowledgable on operating the gun and need to have a valid reason for needing one.
You also cannot carry a loaded gun into public or shoot one in public. Guns need to be kept in a locked container and unloaded as long as they are not on private property. Cannot have loaded guns easily accessible at any time essentially. It's actually stricter than the dutch laws on it.
|
On October 09 2015 00:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:02 Incognoto wrote:On October 08 2015 23:54 Kaethis wrote:
You are oversimplifying the argument. None of us are claiming that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I at least am claiming however that there is something like appropriate force and inappropriate force. I am completely fine with you beating the guy breaking into your house up and throwing him out on his ass, but also know from statistics (and a friend who's a police officer) that that is a bad choice to make if you're concerned about your safety.
Also, please refrain from ad hominem. We're trying to have a discussion, not calling eachother insects. You aren't beating up a guy breaking into your home, not when they're armed with a knife or similar weapon. That's the best way to get killed. However you can't be sure that someone won't break into your home if they know that they'll meet someone with a firearm and who is legally entitled to do it. See plansix's argument about burglars only breaking and entering when no one is home. That's because citizens are allowed to protect their lives with lethal force. In Europe however you are forced to trust your life to the criminal who breaks and enters into your home. How people can defend this is beyond me, I think I'll appropriately call it disgusting because I find terrible that people have so little regard to human lives and security. That's just me. You're not reading what other people are writing. You're just reading what you think the argument you're having is and then arguing against yourself.
You can defend yourself using proportional force but it is always the lesser of two evils, you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you, it is never justice.
That is what I do not agree with, unfortunately. This is what I would call placing your life into the hands of a burglar. Human lives end depending on who hits first, not who has society's "justice" behind it. If you're face to face with a burglar (confirmed) in your own home, it's dark, you can't see his hands, you don't know if there are more, etc. The burglar is the one who gave up their rights when they started threatening the lives of others, because unlike liberal Europeans, I see breaking and entering as a very serious threat to one's life.
You may disagree with that, I understand why you disagree with that. However I do not believe you are correct.
If indeed the first person to hit (whether knife or gun) is the one who survives, then the citizen should very well be entitled to that first shot, given that they are in their home (legal) whereas the criminal is breaking and entering (illegal).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
