|
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 August 02 2018 04:04 basedFinn wrote:
So the discussion is about the guy who shot 13 people in Toronto, correct? Said extremist used a hand gun with military training efficiency. And the main content of the discussion is surrounding "What if he had access to a fully automatic rifle?"
It seems more logical to discuss the facts. His family is saying he suffered from mental problems and the media is reporting the possibility that he was radicalized on his visits to ISIS held territory.
To me, yes, of course he has mental problems. It's never okay to shoot 13 people. The only justification is if you are in a time of war and you are defending your life, or your liberty.
I think it's related to his Muslim faith. He was brainwashed into thinking it's okay to kill "infidels". So he went back to Toronto, where he lives, and committed his act.
Could you explain why it is okay to shoot 13 people if you defend your liberty? Or why it is generally okay to shoot someone to defend your liberty? Genuienly interested in that statement.
|
I still want to know how is relates to him being Muslim. The overwhelming majority of Muslims go through their entire lives without killing a single person.
|
On August 03 2018 00:10 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 04:04 basedFinn wrote:
So the discussion is about the guy who shot 13 people in Toronto, correct? Said extremist used a hand gun with military training efficiency. And the main content of the discussion is surrounding "What if he had access to a fully automatic rifle?"
It seems more logical to discuss the facts. His family is saying he suffered from mental problems and the media is reporting the possibility that he was radicalized on his visits to ISIS held territory.
To me, yes, of course he has mental problems. It's never okay to shoot 13 people. The only justification is if you are in a time of war and you are defending your life, or your liberty.
I think it's related to his Muslim faith. He was brainwashed into thinking it's okay to kill "infidels". So he went back to Toronto, where he lives, and committed his act. Could you explain why it is okay to shoot 13 people if you defend your liberty? Or why it is generally okay to shoot someone to defend your liberty? Genuienly interested in that statement.
Your liberty ends when you intrude upon someone else's liberties. Legal self defense (firearm or not) is a thing in most Western countries. If you've proven that said person was going to either end your life or severely harm you, you are legally entitled in most countries to defend yourself which may include actually ending that other person's life.
Whether or not firearms should be allowed or not is one thing, but I would hope that most reasonable people understand that a self defense killing (which is extremely rare might I add) should be considered legally and morally justified.
|
That's an interesting interpretation of liberty that is already covered by "defending your life", and appears to have utterly no relation to what he was writing.
|
In most US jurisdictions, proof of the assailant's intent is not the focus of the self-defense inquiry. Instead, courts look to the objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of impending harm. Some jurisdictions also allow for partial self-defense that allows for a lighter charge if the defendant can establish that even though his or her fear of impending harm was objectively unreasonable, the defendant nevertheless honestly maintained a subjective fear of impending harm.
|
Reasonable people do understand that self defense can sometimes result in the aggressor being killed. The argument in this thread has always been about when the defending party decides to act and if they were correct in their assessment that their life was in danger.
|
On August 03 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation of liberty that is already covered by "defending your life", and appears to have utterly no relation to what he was writing.
The way he wrote it was very broad in terms of "liberty" so I took it as such. If he's specifically talking about liberty in terms of firearm laws he should state so.
Not to mention the OP that he is responding to is talking about how it's only morally justified to take a life when one's own life is threatened. He questions that and that's why I responded in the way I did.
If we are talking about defense of one individual rights, it would have to be a pretty gross violation of said individual rights to justify violence, especially if it means taking a person's life.
On August 03 2018 01:44 farvacola wrote:
In most US jurisdictions, proof of the assailant's intent is not the focus of the self-defense inquiry. Instead, courts look to the objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of impending harm. Some jurisdictions also allow for partial self-defense that allows for a lighter charge if the defendant can establish that even though his or her fear of impending harm was objectively unreasonable, the defendant nevertheless honestly maintained a subjective fear of impending harm.
I always found us laws on self defense perplexing. It gives you the defender abit too much lattitude, especially since it's on a state by state basis. Based on what I've read, most other Western countries with similar self defense laws don't work under such a burden of proof.
As far as I remember from my readings, most other countries have retreat requirements and proportional response clauses. Such as you must make a reasonable effort to retreat and you only use proportional force based on the aggressors actions. Stand your ground laws which are popular in the U.S allows you to defend yourself without having to retreat as long as you meet certain requirements.
|
Stand your ground that allows you to kill anyone without expectations of retreating is just less than half the states so common, but not a majority opinion. I think castle doctrine might be a majority, but that makes more sense I think.
|
On August 03 2018 02:10 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation of liberty that is already covered by "defending your life", and appears to have utterly no relation to what he was writing. The way he wrote it was very broad in terms of "liberty" so I took it as such. If he's specifically talking about liberty in terms of firearm laws he should state so. Not to mention the OP that he is responding to is talking about how it's only morally justified to take a life when one's own life is threatened. He questions that and that's why I responded in the way I did. If we are talking about defense of one individual rights, it would have to be a pretty gross violation of said individual rights to justify violence, especially if it means taking a person's life. Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 01:44 farvacola wrote:
In most US jurisdictions, proof of the assailant's intent is not the focus of the self-defense inquiry. Instead, courts look to the objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of impending harm. Some jurisdictions also allow for partial self-defense that allows for a lighter charge if the defendant can establish that even though his or her fear of impending harm was objectively unreasonable, the defendant nevertheless honestly maintained a subjective fear of impending harm. I always found us laws on self defense perplexing. It gives you the defender abit too much lattitude, especially since it's on a state by state basis. Based on what I've read, most other Western countries with similar self defense laws don't work under such a burden of proof. As far as I remember from my readings, most other countries have retreat requirements and proportional response clauses. Such as you must make a reasonable effort to retreat and you only use proportional force based on the aggressors actions. Stand your ground laws which are popular in the U.S allows you to defend yourself without having to retreat as long as you meet certain requirements.
You did misunderstand my question. The person i quoted stated that it's okay to kill to defend your own life or your liberties and i give him selfdefense. But I would be interested in understanding what he means by allowing killing to defend liberties. I'll let him answer before further commenting though, because speculating on it doesn't make much sense.
|
On August 03 2018 04:14 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 02:10 superstartran wrote:On August 03 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation of liberty that is already covered by "defending your life", and appears to have utterly no relation to what he was writing. The way he wrote it was very broad in terms of "liberty" so I took it as such. If he's specifically talking about liberty in terms of firearm laws he should state so. Not to mention the OP that he is responding to is talking about how it's only morally justified to take a life when one's own life is threatened. He questions that and that's why I responded in the way I did. If we are talking about defense of one individual rights, it would have to be a pretty gross violation of said individual rights to justify violence, especially if it means taking a person's life. On August 03 2018 01:44 farvacola wrote:
In most US jurisdictions, proof of the assailant's intent is not the focus of the self-defense inquiry. Instead, courts look to the objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of impending harm. Some jurisdictions also allow for partial self-defense that allows for a lighter charge if the defendant can establish that even though his or her fear of impending harm was objectively unreasonable, the defendant nevertheless honestly maintained a subjective fear of impending harm. I always found us laws on self defense perplexing. It gives you the defender abit too much lattitude, especially since it's on a state by state basis. Based on what I've read, most other Western countries with similar self defense laws don't work under such a burden of proof. As far as I remember from my readings, most other countries have retreat requirements and proportional response clauses. Such as you must make a reasonable effort to retreat and you only use proportional force based on the aggressors actions. Stand your ground laws which are popular in the U.S allows you to defend yourself without having to retreat as long as you meet certain requirements. You did misunderstand my question. The person i quoted stated that it's okay to kill to defend your own life or your liberties and i give him selfdefense. But I would be interested in understanding what he means by allowing killing to defend liberties. I'll let him answer before further commenting though, because speculating on it doesn't make much sense.
Liberties.. like, the right to do what he wants to. That's literally what it means, isn't it? You're allowed to kill if someone stops you from doing what you want to. Laws need not apply. Give power to people who claim it with force, and let things play out how they will. Horrible system, that.
Saying everything should be free-market and liberty is like saying, "Diets should consist only of protein. Carbs and fats are pedaled by weak-willed welfare babies."
|
On August 03 2018 02:10 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation of liberty that is already covered by "defending your life", and appears to have utterly no relation to what he was writing. The way he wrote it was very broad in terms of "liberty" so I took it as such. If he's specifically talking about liberty in terms of firearm laws he should state so. Not to mention the OP that he is responding to is talking about how it's only morally justified to take a life when one's own life is threatened. He questions that and that's why I responded in the way I did. If we are talking about defense of one individual rights, it would have to be a pretty gross violation of said individual rights to justify violence, especially if it means taking a person's life. Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 01:44 farvacola wrote:
In most US jurisdictions, proof of the assailant's intent is not the focus of the self-defense inquiry. Instead, courts look to the objective reasonableness of the defendant's fear of impending harm. Some jurisdictions also allow for partial self-defense that allows for a lighter charge if the defendant can establish that even though his or her fear of impending harm was objectively unreasonable, the defendant nevertheless honestly maintained a subjective fear of impending harm. I always found us laws on self defense perplexing. It gives you the defender abit too much lattitude, especially since it's on a state by state basis. Based on what I've read, most other Western countries with similar self defense laws don't work under such a burden of proof. As far as I remember from my readings, most other countries have retreat requirements and proportional response clauses. Such as you must make a reasonable effort to retreat and you only use proportional force based on the aggressors actions. Stand your ground laws which are popular in the U.S allows you to defend yourself without having to retreat as long as you meet certain requirements.
Your name isn't basedFinn either.
|
They way annoying kids play their trash music in my neighborhood sometimes i want to buy a strap and just let some fly... not saying its morally right but the way america accepts childish behavior from adults these days its no wonder other adults get upset and buy guns.
|
On August 03 2018 03:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Stand your ground that allows you to kill anyone without expectations of retreating is just less than half the states so common, but not a majority opinion. I think castle doctrine might be a majority, but that makes more sense I think.
Stand your ground is explicitly stated in a good chunk of states, and in practice (as in not legally written, but precedent in each state) is extremely common to the point where it's pretty much majority. There's a handful of states that have explicit true retreat clauses, as in like maybe 10-15 IIRC if even that? Everyone else either has an explicit stand your ground law or in practice has stand your ground.
Honestly I don't like the laws on self-defense as a gun owner. Responsible training dictates that the LAST thing you do is discharge the firearm. It is an absolute last resort. Everyone here who is a firearm owner knows this; maybe me and GH will differ on our views on the law itself, but we would both agree on the point that you do your best to deescalate the situation without discharging your firearm.
They should be written in a way that dictates that you MUST make an effort to retreat if you can. I understand situations get hazy and it's hard, but it's very easy to abuse stand your ground laws, particularly in the more liberal ones such as Florida. The recent case in Florida parking lot shooting is one such thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-trnd/index.html
There's enough evidence there for you to make your own judgement.
|
On August 03 2018 09:41 funnybananaman wrote:
They way annoying kids play their trash music in my neighborhood sometimes i want to buy a strap and just let some fly... not saying its morally right but the way america accepts childish behavior from adults these days its no wonder other adults get upset and buy guns.
Because they aren't just childish but homicidal as well?
|
On August 03 2018 11:13 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 03:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Stand your ground that allows you to kill anyone without expectations of retreating is just less than half the states so common, but not a majority opinion. I think castle doctrine might be a majority, but that makes more sense I think. Stand your ground is explicitly stated in a good chunk of states, and in practice (as in not legally written, but precedent in each state) is extremely common to the point where it's pretty much majority. There's a handful of states that have explicit true retreat clauses, as in like maybe 10-15 IIRC if even that? Everyone else either has an explicit stand your ground law or in practice has stand your ground. Honestly I don't like the laws on self-defense as a gun owner. Responsible training dictates that the LAST thing you do is discharge the firearm. It is an absolute last resort. Everyone here who is a firearm owner knows this; maybe me and GH will differ on our views on the law itself, but we would both agree on the point that you do your best to deescalate the situation without discharging your firearm. They should be written in a way that dictates that you MUST make an effort to retreat if you can. I understand situations get hazy and it's hard, but it's very easy to abuse stand your ground laws, particularly in the more liberal ones such as Florida. The recent case in Florida parking lot shooting is one such thing. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-trnd/index.htmlThere's enough evidence there for you to make your own judgement.
That is why I brought up castle doctrine, even though I think it is overly broad in applying to cars and boats. In your own home I'd give a lot more leeway than in a parking lot, but stand your ground means there won't be a second thought about it. It's not in human nature to remain calm in stressful situations. Deescalation is nice in theory, but high risk and we make it low reward with our laws.
|
On August 03 2018 11:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 11:13 superstartran wrote:On August 03 2018 03:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Stand your ground that allows you to kill anyone without expectations of retreating is just less than half the states so common, but not a majority opinion. I think castle doctrine might be a majority, but that makes more sense I think. Stand your ground is explicitly stated in a good chunk of states, and in practice (as in not legally written, but precedent in each state) is extremely common to the point where it's pretty much majority. There's a handful of states that have explicit true retreat clauses, as in like maybe 10-15 IIRC if even that? Everyone else either has an explicit stand your ground law or in practice has stand your ground. Honestly I don't like the laws on self-defense as a gun owner. Responsible training dictates that the LAST thing you do is discharge the firearm. It is an absolute last resort. Everyone here who is a firearm owner knows this; maybe me and GH will differ on our views on the law itself, but we would both agree on the point that you do your best to deescalate the situation without discharging your firearm. They should be written in a way that dictates that you MUST make an effort to retreat if you can. I understand situations get hazy and it's hard, but it's very easy to abuse stand your ground laws, particularly in the more liberal ones such as Florida. The recent case in Florida parking lot shooting is one such thing. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-trnd/index.htmlThere's enough evidence there for you to make your own judgement. That is why I brought up castle doctrine, even though I think it is overly broad in applying to cars and boats. In your own home I'd give a lot more leeway than in a parking lot, but stand your ground means there won't be a second thought about it. It's not in human nature to remain calm in stressful situations. Deescalation is nice in theory, but high risk and we make it low reward with our laws.
NRA trainers explicitly train people on deescalation of situations. Discharge of firearm by a amateur shooter is the worst possible situation that can happen, because of so many things can go wrong. Trained military soldiers make mistakes and friendly fire occurs or civilian injuries/fatalities occur. Let's not even talk about an amateur discharging a weapon in a public area.
It's really not even a theory, it's explicitly trained that you do everything in your power to deescalate and don't engage unless it's a last resort. Good training and education is the #1 way to prevent shitty situations like that Florida parking lot case.
|
So you agree that even the highest amount of training still allows fatal mistakes to take place and people getting killed? If trained soldiers can shoot innocent bystanders, giving an NRA member a deescalation workshop is probably not gonna achieve very much. If a person is in a situation where a gun is available and that person uses it to kill somebody, the easiest way to not have that death is to remove the gun.
|
On August 03 2018 17:52 Broetchenholer wrote:
So you agree that even the highest amount of training still allows fatal mistakes to take place and people getting killed? If trained soldiers can shoot innocent bystanders, giving an NRA member a deescalation workshop is probably not gonna achieve very much. If a person is in a situation where a gun is available and that person uses it to kill somebody, the easiest way to not have that death is to remove the gun.
This is straw manning to the highest degree.
For one, we're talking about when you discharge a weapon in public. Which is a really shitty idea most of the time. Most assailants target people who they perceive to be weak and unarmed. This is why most women are trained in a potential rape scenario to fight no matter what if they are being taken. Most attackers give up once they encounter resistance. It's the same reason why schools utilize certain lockdown protocols. In most cases reported cases of self-defense from everything I've read, firearms aren't even discharged most of the time because the simple threat of it being used subdues the threat.
It's very important that people learn when is the appropriate time to discharge a firearm. In most cases it's pretty much never. Properly trained civilians know that in most cases you don't discharge unless you absolutely have to. We're talking about instances where hot heads who have little to no training discharge their weapon because of a really lax law that allows them to do so.
And your last sentence is exactly why this discussion is absolutely fruitless, because your solution is to literally take guns away from people, which isn't even realistic to begin with. If you can't recognize very legitimate reasons why gun owners feel that they should have a gun, then there's no point in having a discussion, because you have already taken a relatively extreme stance.
|
It's not a strawman. In your example of the florida parking lot shooting, a jerk with an immense sense of entitlement parks in a disabled spot and then decides to shoot someone when challenged on it. It's pretty clear that his sense of entitlement allows him to shoot a person dead and feels empowered by doing so. No amount of training would had caused that jerk with an immense sense of entitlement to not shoot that person, except to change the law so he isn't entitled to shoot someone to soothe his damaged ego without repercussion.
|
On August 03 2018 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 09:41 funnybananaman wrote:
They way annoying kids play their trash music in my neighborhood sometimes i want to buy a strap and just let some fly... not saying its morally right but the way america accepts childish behavior from adults these days its no wonder other adults get upset and buy guns. Because they aren't just childish but homicidal as well?
Yeah this one stopped me in my tracks for a good 30 seconds or so
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
