|
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 09 2015 00:06 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +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
They seem to have a number of restrictions and actively monitor if someone is mentally unable(recovering from a mental disorder) to own a gun. Also if you have a history of addiction to drugs, alcohol or a violent history, you can't buy them. So unlike the US, it is easier for them to prohibit your ability to buy a gun taken away by the state if you break to many of the states laws. There are also insurance requirements and other things.
It sounds way more comprehensive than the US system. And it is likely is funded, which the US system normally isn't due to political nonsense.
|
On October 09 2015 00:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:06 TRAP[yoo] wrote: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 They seem to have a number of restrictions and actively monitor if someone is mentally unable(recovering from a mental disorder) to own a gun. Also if you have a history of addiction to drugs, alcohol or a violent history, you can't buy them. So unlike the US, it is easier for them to prohibit your ability to buy a gun taken away by the state if you break to many of the states laws. There are also insurance requirements and other things. It sounds way more comprehensive than the US system. And it is likely is funded, which the US system normally isn't due to political nonsense.
The US system could indeed take a few leaves out of Germany's books.
|
United States43347 Posts
On October 09 2015 00:11 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:04 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +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).
You didn't read what I wrote, again. I didn't say they couldn't defend themselves. On the contrary I said that they should defend themselves with proportional force if their life was in danger. However it would not be justice which is the province of the courts, not vigilantism by the victims, it would be necessity.
|
You'll have to explain the difference then between arguing "you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you" and "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)." because I'm clearly not intelligent enough to have a discussion with you.
However it would not be justice which is the province of the courts, not vigilantism by the victims, it would be necessity.
Indeed, I can see that. However the law should still protect the citizen over the criminal in such situations. That is what happens in dangerous situations such as a breaking and entering unfortunately, people have their lives endangered. In a perfect world the victim could protect themselves without using lethal force. Unfortunately that can't always be the case and in the cases where the victim needed to use lethal force to defend themselves, which is something which absolutely possible when during a break-in, the victim is the one the law should protect.
|
Yet you would shoot someone that has no intention of hurting you for his poor life choices and your perceived view of you being worth more then him. The chances of me diying in a burglary attempt in my flat are astronomically small. I would still crap myself in fear and probably take months to be back to normal. But at least i would never have to carry the guilt around of having shot a 14 year old boy that was hungry and saw my window was open.
|
On October 09 2015 00:18 Incognoto wrote:
You'll have to explain the difference then between arguing "you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you" and "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)." because I'm clearly not intelligent enough to have a discussing with you.
Most break in are done by people that are unarmed, since home invasion carry's a life sentence in almost every state. And in my state there are laws against using "excessive force" when defending yourself. Like opening fire on someone without warning if you suspect they might be unarmed(which would be questionable, not automatically criminal).
On October 09 2015 00:19 Broetchenholer wrote:
Yet you would shoot someone that has no intention of hurting you for his poor life choices and your perceived view of you being worth more then him. The chances of me diying in a burglary attempt in my flat are astronomically small. I would still crap myself in fear and probably take months to be back to normal. But at least i would never have to carry the guilt around of having shot a 14 year old boy that was hungry and saw my window was open.
This post is spot on. Sometimes people who break into houses are just desperate, not dangerous.
|
On October 09 2015 00:18 Incognoto wrote:
You'll have to explain the difference then between arguing "you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you" and "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)." because I'm clearly not intelligent enough to have a discussing with you.
What he's saying is that while you should probably defend yourself if you need to this is not what is commonly referred to as 'justice'. In most countries, the state has exclusive rights on using violence and as such you being violent to defend yourself is not justice. It might be necessary, which makes it the lesser of two evils, but that does not make it right.
And good thing too, because if this weren't true the entiry justice system wouldn't work. This principle might sound wrong to you but it is absolutely fundamental to the way our society works.
|
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.
The point of the statistics is that roughly 99.983% of the time you aren't defending your life if someone breaks into your home. Someone tries to steal something from you and killing them is not a reasonable reaction. Criminals aren't all the same and they don't all deserve to be shot. I often cross red traffic lights when I'm by foot and when I'm by car I often drive faster than allowed. That doesn't mean I'm a convicted murderer or even that I ever had the intention of killing someone.
I understand that it's terrible to be victim of a burglary, worse than being a victim of a normal robbery (and that's pretty bad already). And I totally understand your desire not to be helpless in that situation. But as was pointed out earlier, the chance that you are killed rises if you have a gun at home, so being helpless despite feeling painful is actually safer for your own life.
|
United States43347 Posts
On October 09 2015 00:18 Incognoto wrote:
You'll have to explain the difference then between arguing "you are assaulting someone else to prevent an assault on you" and "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)." because I'm clearly not intelligent enough to have a discussing with you.
You should assault someone with the minimum force necessary to prevent an assault on yourself. When judged for your assault on the person the fact that you were preventing an imminent threat to yourself ought to be enough to find your actions justified and not charge you with anything.
Justice is the province of the courts as appointed by society, not the individual. An individual may act out of necessity and the courts may later find their actions to be justified but that does not mean that the individual is empowered to dispense justice. You cannot sentence another man to death. You may kill him but you cannot sentence him to death. It's an important difference.
|
On October 09 2015 00:25 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 23:51 Incognoto wrote: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. The point of the statistics is that roughly 99.983% of the time you aren't defending your life if someone breaks into your home. Someone tries to steal something from you and killing them is not a reasonable reaction. Criminals aren't all the same and they don't all deserve to be shot. I often cross red traffic lights when I'm by foot and when I'm by car I often drive faster than allowed. That doesn't mean I'm a convicted murderer or even that I ever had the intention of killing someone. I understand that it's terrible to be victim of a burglary, worse than being a victim of a normal robbery (and that's pretty bad already). And I totally understand your desire not to be helpless in that situation. But as was pointed out earlier, the chance that you are killed rises if you have a gun at home, so being helpless despite feeling painful is actually safer for your own life.
This argument has been brought multiple times, and sadly has as often been ignored due to emotional arguments.
You are not safer if you intend to shoot people who break into your house. It is safer not to do that. Shooting at people who enter your house increases the likelyhood of you being hurt greatly. Even having a gun in your house already increases the likelyhood of you being hurt during a robbery.
It also increases the chances of you hurting your family, and innocent, or a criminal that while having made a bad decision might not deserve to die either.
All around, it is an emotional response that has a lot of downsides, and no upsides.
|
Burglars aren't exactly people you want to invite over for dinner but they are still people. The shear dehumanization of "criminals" here is a little terrifying.
Though some here remind me of this woman.
Police confirmed on Wednesday that a concealed pistol license (CPL) holder was not being threatened by a fleeing shoplifter when she decided to fire multiple shots at him in a Home Depot parking lot.
And experts interviewed Wednesday doubted the shooting could have been justified.
“It’s my worst nightmare as a CPL instructor,” said Doreen Hankins, owner of Detroit Arms, which holds CPL classes. “You have to know the entire situation before you pull that handgun out. And I don’t see that a shoplifter at Home Depot fills any of those criteria.”
Source
|
United States43347 Posts
So you're saying I can't hunt criminals for sport?
|
On October 09 2015 02:43 KwarK wrote:
So you're saying I can't hunt criminals for sport?
not unless your a bounty hunter and even then you still have to try to take them in alive
|
So, I propose a freeze on all new gun sales. Everyone who has a weapon must report their intended use and how much ammunition they currently have. This will allow statistics to be gathered on the type, make, model, and location of all weapons. To allow for error in reporting and those who just don't want to help define stats, we'll allow for a 8%-11% margin of error.
Now, after we get a better since of how many states have how many weapons and how many people allow them, we can get a better understanding of the saturation rates of states. If, for instance, the state of Texas has 85% saturation in ownership of weapons, we can increase the harshness of the penalties. This would hopefully deter crime somewhat. Anyone found guilty of any offense, no matter how small, loses their rights to own a weapon. Traffic ticket? No Beretta.
Thoughts?
|
United States43347 Posts
Unconstitutional, unenforceable and arbitrary are three words that come to mind.
|
On October 09 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:
Unconstitutional, unenforceable and arbitrary are three words that come to mind.
Define the first and last please.
|
On October 09 2015 04:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:
Unconstitutional, unenforceable and arbitrary are three words that come to mind. Define the first and last please.
You need someone to explain why what you described is unconstitutional?
|
On October 09 2015 04:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 04:09 KwarK wrote:
Unconstitutional, unenforceable and arbitrary are three words that come to mind. Define the first and last please.
The second amendment exists and even if they could get around that, its the overwhelming majority of guns in the US are not used in violent crimes.
|
Half of Brazil Believes That 'the Only Good Criminal Is a Dead Criminal'
We have very strict gun control though. To purchase a firearm one must be at least 25 years old, have fixed residence, lawful occupation, clean criminal record, declare effective need, and pass technical and psychological exams by federally accredited professionals.
By an unfortunate coincidence, there are five times more violent deaths than in the US by population.
|
I do not Helius X. It would behoove you to stop assuming people are ignorant or of lesser intelligence to you. I asked him to define it as he saw it. Not as it says on paper.
It is not unconstitutional to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals if they commit a crime. That is the problem we have. You commit a felony, you lose the right to vote. The same should be done with regards to firearms. Asking people to participate in a survey to better understand the saturation of firearms in america is unenforceable. You can't force anyone to comply with any laws. But people do because they try, about 20% of the time to look beyond themselves. Understandably, people who do not wish to volunteer said information, cannot and should not be punished. If you answer that you have 3 pistols and a box of ammunition for each, locked away securely behind lock and key - combination, then you seem like a responsible person. If you answer that you have 45 pistols, shotguns, semis, and rifles, some collectible, some for sport, and some for safety, you should be required to provide proof you are not mentally unstable, have them firmly secure and out of the reach of others, and can demonstrate sound firearms handling and safety techniques, you should be required to obtain a license to have that many provided that you submit to yearly checks for mental health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
