|
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 February 22 2018 02:06 Velr wrote:
Search his posts in this tread... I wouldn't be surprised if aswtini was pro landmine homedefense.
Traps of any form are not legal as home defense in the US. If you are going to fuck someone up, you best do it in person.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body?
it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:06 Velr wrote:
Search his posts in this tread... I wouldn't be surprised if aswtini was pro landmine homedefense. Traps of any form are not legal as home defense in the US. If you are going to fuck someone up, you best do it in person.
that's the type of posting that i come to expect from velr, to the point that i dont even respond to his bullshit.
|
On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill
To be fair, in some states it is because the burden on the home owner is so low.
|
On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill
if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all(only some?) these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one?
|
On February 22 2018 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:06 Velr wrote:
Search his posts in this tread... I wouldn't be surprised if aswtini was pro landmine homedefense. Traps of any form are not legal as home defense in the US. If you are going to fuck someone up, you best do it in person.
Macaulay Culkin disagrees, especially after speaking with Donald Trump.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one?
there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably.
i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation?
|
On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably.
isn’t that the problem? isn’t deadly force NOT warranted in the situation when there’s not actual harm? the perception of a 13 year old surely can’t be the arbiter of when deadly force is appropriate. because again, as far as i know, death is not the usual punishment for home invasion.
re edit: yes? if the alternative is death, yes. the child lets the invader steal whatever and everyone lives. that is definitely the preferred situation. as often as possible the preferred situation is to let a criminal be sentenced and given due process. not gunned down.
|
The arbiter of deadly force is a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The judgment of of a minor is not factored into. They are held to the same standard as adults. However, due to their age and physical abilities, the bar is lower.
Edit: The child is not expected to understand the intent of the invader. And also, home invasion is already a serious crime, as most states say that invading a home at night caries a life sentence if invader is armed.
|
On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation?
Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted? In how many other situations do we trust a 13 year old to decide if it makes sense to kill someone?
If we assume the person invading the home would indeed kill the 13 year old if given the chance, I support the 13 year old's decision to kill the home invader. But they just can't ever know that. No one can. The problem with the scenario you are describing is that we are essentially relying on the guy instinct of a 13 year old to decide if a home invader should die or not.
The ethics you are outlining assume a lesser importance of the lives of home invaders. Shitty people, sure, but what you are saying basically says a home invader can be killed whether or not they actually had lethal intent. And we can't know whether they had lethal intent or not. The situation is already very messy, even when dealing with an adult. A child?
Consider all the reasons you wouldn't hire a 13 year old wherever you work. Is that who we want deciding if someone should die?
|
On February 22 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
The arbiter of deadly force is a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The judgment of of a minor is not factored into. They are held to the same standard as adults. However, due to their age and physical abilities, the bar is lower.
Edit: The child is not expected to understand the intent of the invader. And also, home invasion is already a serious crime, as most states say that invading a home at night caries a life sentence if invader is armed.
first paragraph seems inherently inconsistent.
second paragraph puts forth the key here, sentencing.
we’ve strayed a bit from my original problem here though, and i hate being the person that brings a thread down a two page tangent. i think it’s been given its answer and just not fully swallowed(and this may be on my part.) i’m still seeing here that would should be upset if a child shoots the home invader. lethal force is only called for when one fears for their life. this simply can’t come to pass in the situation, and in the end i think it seems like we’re ok saying it’s not a good thing. but nobody’s actually saying it.
|
On February 22 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation? Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted?
What chain of events would take place where there would be an alternative? It isn’t like there is going to be an adult in the room with the child that hands the gun to them and says “You take the shot, Jenny. Just like Daddy taught you.” The child gets the gun during the home invasion because they are scared and has the gun when they are confronted by invader.
|
On February 22 2018 02:29 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
The arbiter of deadly force is a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The judgment of of a minor is not factored into. They are held to the same standard as adults. However, due to their age and physical abilities, the bar is lower.
Edit: The child is not expected to understand the intent of the invader. And also, home invasion is already a serious crime, as most states say that invading a home at night caries a life sentence if invader is armed. first paragraph seems inherently inconsistent. second paragraph puts forth the key here, sentencing.
Fear of great bodily harm is not impacted by age. If the fear was reasonable can be changed by the physical abilities of the person. A 170 pound man is not held to teh same standard as a navy seal. A child is not held to the same standard as an adult.
|
On February 22 2018 01:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 00:09 Danglars wrote:On February 21 2018 23:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns:
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. 1.) Maybe you would need to be an American to hear the familiar call to ban assault weapons in the wake of every school shooting. The comparison to nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense here. People think the deadliest mass shooting was with an AR-15, instead of the actual two pistols that were used. 3) Maybe your point is to ban knives in the hopes that criminals will get less of them. 4) You would think from media reports that the country is witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence, caused by lax gun laws. This is untrue. The fact that you’re fighting this shows ignorance or perversity. It still remains that the loudest voices are the most uninformed ones on this topic. When you hear facts you don’t like, don’t be that guy that assumes the side they lend credence to invalidates the statistic. These are ground rules for the debates that everybody should know ... but certain Europeans and American leftists want to cover their eyes. You have got to hear both sides to actually claim to think. I’m not talking about hearing that the media says about the NRA amounts to hearing both sides. That’s foolishness. 1) No. BAnning semi automatic long rifles is a reasonable start because those weapons have the worst usefulness to threat ratio. It's like claiming that people should be allowed to attach spinning blades to their monster tracks because most deaths by a vehicle was in fact done by a Prius without spinning blades. The argument that semi automatic long rifles are not the problem because pistols are a worse problem is not an argument. Society has a history of allowing stuff that it shouldn't if it creates some kind of benefit to society. I don't agree on that, but one could say small firearms have value for american society because if everyone has one, everyone can defend itself and his/her property against everyone else. We accept this as a benefit. Pistols are the prius that can be used to cause death, but we accept that because it also grants us mobility. The AR-15 however is a solution to a problem that does not exist in civil society. It is a "fun" weapon and fun is usually not enough to counter the threat something has to society. 3) No, my point is that this statistic is fucking stupid. surprisingly, the percentage of guns used for violent gun crime is limited to the percentage of vieloent gun crime in your country, no matter how many guns you own. If you are saturated on guns, like you are, increasing that number times 2 means the number of weapons used for violence has just dropped magically by half. Even in the US the number of violent crimes is low enough to only amout to 1% of all guns, which seems really low, which is whiy it was said in the first place. 4) I never fought this. Start responding to what i say and not what youz want me to have said to fir your narrative. The murder rates of all OECD countries dropped massively over the last 3 decades. It's a global phenomenon probably caused by changes in demographics or economy or social structure common everywhere. The fact that the source you are quoting uses this fact to try and sell this as a reason why gun control cannot work and then you blame me and call me ignorant and perverse because i am fighting facts? WHAT THE FUCK?? You have voted for the guy that said America is a zombieapocalypse and onle he can bring law and order back. All i have ever read here on this forum is people complaining that gun rampages are not being addressed now and have not been addressed for years. That is something different then claiming the murder rate went up. That is what your president said, whom you defend whenever you have the chance. 1) I don’t acknowledge your characterization of “usefulness to threat ratio.” They’re popular for their useful characteristics. They aren’t popular because the country is filled with potential school shooters that want to be prepared to go kill some kids. You’re acting like th buyers are idiots, which is exactly why myself and others point out the demonization of gun owners. You sit in judgement of the tradeoffs you choose to highlight. Get lost. 3) You were the one that brought up knife statistics. Gun control proponents have long argued that reducing the accessibility of guns will helpfully reduce the amount criminals can acquire and use by proxy. It would be like banning knives because a small percentage are used to unlawful purposes. Oops. Doesn’t work for your argument. 4) Nope. Read the article again. It’s correcting falsehoods. People feel like recent mass shootings mean violence in this country is on the rise, and new regulations on guns is a necessary “do something” response. But please keep talking about “ You have voted for the guy that said America is a zombieapocalypse.” We need more people to realize how crazy some people on the other side (or on their side) really are. The hatred and emotional response is absolutely palpable. We need more people to recognize why gun owners are justified on slamming the brakes to respond to the unabashed craziness.
3) You never even responded to my argument. You turn and claim i did another argument and then claim yourself the victory. Then you insult me. I am not gun control proponents. I made a simply statement. Listing the percentage of weapons used for criminal purposes is not productive, because
a) violent crime even in the US is low enough to make it sound like a really low number, like lower then 1%
b) Just because everyone in the US who already owns a gun doubles his stack does not mean the gun crime rate goes up by the factor of two as well. Nobody ever claimed that guncrime rises linearly with the amount of weapons in the country but that is needed to make that statistic relevant.
4)If that was the goal of the article, it could have stated that. Instead it tried to correct a falsehood by claiming the 50% drop of murder could have something to do with a rise of the number of weapons. Again, nobody ever claimed that gun murder rises linearly with # of weapons in a given country. You are so furious at the perceived mediabias and misleading stats that you tolerate and welcome mediabias and misleading stats.
So go on and call me crazy, perverted, ignorant, uninformed and hateful. I will stop discussing this with you because you are not discussing, you are just throwing mud and then calling the other side names.
|
On February 22 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation? Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted? What chain of events would take place where there would be an alternative? It isn’t like there is going to be an adult in the room with the child that hands the gun to them and says “You take the shot, Jenny. Just like Daddy taught you.” The child gets the gun during the home invasion because they are scared and has the gun when they are confronted by invader.
You're right, and that is why I am saying the situation is already very messy. I just don't see the difference between this situation and a wrongful death penalty conviction. What if that dude really would not have killed the kid? What if someone dies because they broke into someone's house? Our laws regarding the death penalty don't go anywhere close to home invasion. We would never give someone the death penalty for breaking into someone's home. Defending yourself when you are fearful for your life is an accepted legal event, but home invasion is a little different. Someone running at you with a knife is a pretty clear situation where you should shoot the fucker. But if someone is sneaking around your house, and they haven't seen you yet, should you shoot? When you are given the choice between yelling at someone to leave, potentially endangering your life, or shooting that person, it is just a super fucked up situation no matter how you look at it.
I am just pointing out the fact that when we allow a kid to defend themselves in this way, we are saying it is ok for someone to die based on suspicion. We are generally much less comfortable with killing people who do illegal things. And while sure, I support the idea that a bad dude should have lower priority than some kids, but when it is life and death...that is a lot less clear.
|
On February 22 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation? Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted? What chain of events would take place where there would be an alternative? It isn’t like there is going to be an adult in the room with the child that hands the gun to them and says “You take the shot, Jenny. Just like Daddy taught you.” The child gets the gun during the home invasion because they are scared and has the gun when they are confronted by invader.
The big problem with this scenario is not even the situation where the child is correct in identifying a home invader. Even then there are arguments, as can be seen.
Instead, lets take a look at the situation where the child misidentifies the situation. The man coming through the door is not the evil ax murderer that seems to be so incredibly prevalent in the US that everyone must always be prepared to defend against him, but their uncle/brother/sister/father/mother.
|
On February 22 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation? Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted? What chain of events would take place where there would be an alternative? It isn’t like there is going to be an adult in the room with the child that hands the gun to them and says “You take the shot, Jenny. Just like Daddy taught you.” The child gets the gun during the home invasion because they are scared and has the gun when they are confronted by invader. You're right, and that is why I am saying the situation is already very messy. I just don't see the difference between this situation and a wrongful death penalty conviction. What if that dude really would not have killed the kid? What if someone dies because they broke into someone's house? Our laws regarding the death penalty don't go anywhere close to home invasion. We would never give someone the death penalty for breaking into someone's home. Defending yourself when you are fearful for your life is an accepted legal event, but home invasion is a little different. Someone running at you with a knife is a pretty clear situation where you should shoot the fucker. But if someone is sneaking around your house, and they haven't seen you yet, should you shoot? When you are given the choice between yelling at someone to leave, potentially endangering your life, or shooting that person, it is just a super fucked up situation no matter how you look at it. I am just pointing out the fact that when we allow a kid to defend themselves in this way, we are saying it is ok for someone to die based on suspicion. We are generally much less comfortable with killing people who do illegal things. And while sure, I support the idea that a bad dude should have lower priority than some kids, but when it is life and death...that is a lot less clear.
I'm going to take the gun owners stance on this one: Don't invade my house when my kids and I are home. And leave when I threaten you with my shotgun. School and work happen the same time every day. If you are going to steal, do it then and don't come in armed. The laws are written in such a punish that crime less severely in most states. If you are dumb enough to invade a house at night, while armed, you might get shot by a kid who is terrified of you.
On February 22 2018 02:38 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:29 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On February 22 2018 02:19 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:13 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:10 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:07 brian wrote:On February 22 2018 02:05 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 02:04 brian wrote:
sarcasm not withstanding why is it that considering SHOOTING a home invader a bad thing, a bad thing? is it not ok to think home invasion is not punishable by death?
i suppose this could be a conversation for a different thread but this baffles me every time it is glossed over. i don't know, but when i brought up the fact that a poster seemed to be upset that a child could shoot dead a home invader, someone else decided to make it a moral equivalency to a child shooting a sibling is there not reason to be upset, inapt comparison aside? is the ultimate result of every act of self defense a dead body? it's not like lethal force is the only form of self defence. there are laws that govern the use of deadly force in self defence. if you shoot somebody dead, you're going to have to justify it. and 'stand your ground' is so badly misrepresented that many people think it's some license to kill if this is the case, shouldn’t you also be agreeing that a minor shooting a home invader is a problem? obviously they’re legally incapabale of all these things, which isn’t to mention they are also likely not to be the gun owner, much less a responsible one? there are plenty of news stories of minors shooting home invaders. i don't see the problem with this, outside of the fact that people shouldn't be invading people's homes in the first place. minors can be taught how to use firearms, especially if there are going to be firearms stored in the house. it's not like a minor can freely shoot whoever and be absolved of all responsibility. but when it comes to the test of 'fearing for your life', a 13 year old child facing a 30 year old intruder is going to be viewed quite favourably. i really don't see why there is a problem here. the alternative to a minor shooting dead a home invader, is the minor being defenceless against a home invader. is that a preferred situation? Should a 13 year old's view of when they are and are not at risk of dying be trusted? What chain of events would take place where there would be an alternative? It isn’t like there is going to be an adult in the room with the child that hands the gun to them and says “You take the shot, Jenny. Just like Daddy taught you.” The child gets the gun during the home invasion because they are scared and has the gun when they are confronted by invader. The big problem with this scenario is not even the situation where the child is correct in identifying a home invader. Even then there are arguments, as can be seen. Instead, lets take a look at the situation where the child misidentifies the situation. The man coming through the door is not the evil ax murderer that seems to be so incredibly prevalent in the US that everyone must always be prepared to defend against him, but their uncle/brother/sister/father/mother.
I grew up around guns and it was never a problem. I never felt the need to run and get a rifle because I was scared. Most well adjusted gun owners don't go for their guns unless they know something is very wrong.
|
Someone forgive me if this is stupid, but:
What about tranquilizers? Do movies misrepresent tranquilizers? Do people actually take a long time to go down? It looks like tranquilizers take you down pretty quick. Would a gun that shoots tranquilizers be worse than a gun that makes people bleed?
|
On February 22 2018 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
Someone forgive me if this is stupid, but:
What about tranquilizers? Do movies misrepresent tranquilizers? Do people actually take a long time to go down? It looks like tranquilizers take you down pretty quick. Would a gun that shoots tranquilizers be worse than a gun that makes people bleed?
Yes and yes. They take a long time to work and you are equally likely to kill the person.
|
On February 22 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
Someone forgive me if this is stupid, but:
What about tranquilizers? Do movies misrepresent tranquilizers? Do people actually take a long time to go down? It looks like tranquilizers take you down pretty quick. Would a gun that shoots tranquilizers be worse than a gun that makes people bleed? Yes and yes. They take a long time to work and you are equally likely to kill the person.
Welp, never mind then. I just can't help but think there must be some alternative. But I imagine people smarter than me have pondered this question before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
