|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 20 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 17, 2012 02:39 AM |
|
|
The issues at the heart of the matter are twofold:
(1) Does a person have the right to use deadly force to prevent any crime against oneself, or only to defend oneself against deadly force?
(2) Does a person have the right to use deadly force to prevent crimes against another person?
WRT to (2), would you people feel differently if instead of a family member, the person being sexually assaulted was a perfect stranger?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 04:35 AM |
|
|
Unless you are an expert in close combat, it is impossible to draw a line between deadly and not deadly. The human body is fragile regardless where you kick, you may beat someone for hours and he gets only bruises, but one kick to the head can kill. The goal is to disable the other before he does it to you, but we don't have a manual for that. That's why an autopsy can reveal if death was accidental or not.
If one is unconscious and you keep kicking in the head, I believe it is a kill, no matter what happened before. But typing on the keyboard is different from what this father had to handle, too...
For your last question, there was a similar issue in Russia, some time ago. Two burglars killed someone's pet and ate it. The guy went nuts and killed the burglars in a very brutal way. Then people around forums raised the question: is the life of a pet more valuable than human life?
Of course not, but in this case the emotional aspect is obliterating other considerations. The pet was not for him only "a dog".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 08:52 AM |
|
|
Probably the first time I agree completely with Salamandre.
You never the meaning someone or something may have for a person - it doesn't even have to be alive: if some vandals ruin the house or flat of another person, destroying something that was VERY dear to the owner, and the guy loses it completely and goes rabid on them... I mean, the value of things and persons for another one is completely subjective, but that's what this is actually all about: the value the object or subject that is abused or destroyed or killed or maimed has for another person.
And if that value is high enough, a highly emotional response is understandable, which may mean temporary insanity.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 10:41 AM |
|
|
I'm against private gun ownership for many reasons. Not necessarily ethical ones.
Some of them are:
1. It did nothing for the US. Still massive crime rate compared to non-gun countries.
2. A pistol is NOT a good self defense weapon. It takes more time to ready than any other weapon & it is pretty hard to hit the target.
For street defense, getting pepper spray is actually much better, unless there's a strong wind. For home defense, I'd stick to a big dog. he's also much better than a shotgun, both as deterrent and as actual defense mechanism. Shotgun will do you no good when you're outside your house when it's robbed or when you're asleep when they are plundering your house. A dog works in such situations flawlessly.
Also, it's XXI century. There are alarm systems that are pretty much out of reach of typical robbers' ability. Most are cheap.
Guns are virtually worthless in self-defense. To defend yourself with a gun, you have to ready it, hit the target, be aware that the target is i.e. in your home, and do it faster than him (in a gun-totting country the robber obviously also has a gun.). Pretty complicated if you ask me.
You also have to endure the sight of brains splattered around your walls. I'd say, for some people, this might be a severe trauma. Not everyone is a man of steel like Elly 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
pol
Known Hero
.^.
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 01:06 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
Both yes, in required case. But NO for shotguns. That's mostly the attack weapon - not the suitable one for selfdefense.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 01:58 PM |
|
|
I think this topic is a lot about what kind of society you want to strive for.
Would I want to live in a society where every single person feels like they need to have a gun under their bed?
No. To me, that symbolizes a society living in fear and paranoia.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 03:47 PM |
|
|
I happen to agree with the founding fathers, the people (plebs, cannon fodder et cetera) need a viable means to over-throw tyranny when it presents itself, gun ownership is a viable safeguard against the inevitable. The question is, is it worth it~?
Personally I think guns remove that feeling of inability, which is common place with the lower classes. (evidently this isn't all good)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 05:54 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:55, 17 Jun 2012.
|
I don't think that I'll ever understand why the founding fathers and that hundreds of years old constitution are so important.
But then, a lot of people and societies rely on religious texts that are nearly 2000 years old or more.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 06:46 PM |
|
|
Yeah it's just the ultimate code of laws in our country. Why would anyone need to care about that?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 06:57 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:59, 17 Jun 2012.
|
Quote:
I don't think that I'll ever understand why the founding fathers and that hundreds of years old constitution are so important.
But then, a lot of people and societies rely on religious texts that are nearly 2000 years old or more.
The truth is the truth no matter how long ago it was written.
The Constitution is important because the US is to be a nation ruled by laws, not by a despot. I understand some people would just prefer a Father Stalin or whatever to lay down "the law" as he sees fit, but such a "system" will always be to the ruin of the people he rules.
The founders wanted people to be able to guard all of their liberties from abuse by the government as well as abuse by individuals. Some people say, "Oh, modern alarm systems can be installed, so no need for guns because the police will protect you." Really? There are lots of people who live in rural areas where the police will take quite some time to arrive. Even in cities with lots of patrols the police can't save you from a home invasion. Only you can protect yourself and your family by being properly armed.
Part of being properly armed is taking the time to familiarize yourself with your weapon. This means not only knowing proper operation of the weapon but practicing with said weapon. Also, as I've said previously, the best weapon for home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. You don't have to aim down the sights, just point the barrel in the direction of the intruder and shoot and you will certainly hit him. The shot will knock him off his feet and he will in all likelihood stay down. You don't aim for headshots. point towards center of mass.
Oh, there are lots of knife crimes in Britian, as well as gun crimes still. And certainly there are more home invasions in Europe than in the US. I've already shown statistics that there are fewer home invasions in states where gun ownership is not made a heavy burden.
If a person is committing a crime he has no right to commit the crime in safety. Enduring the memory of brains being splattered all over your walls is certainly a better memory than enduring the memory of your wife and children being raped in front of you and slowly tortured to death.
Any person who is opposed to individual ownership of guns does not have to buy one. But they should not seek to deny the right of others to protect themselves and their families.
____________
Revelation
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 07:06 PM |
|
|
What I find funny is that people think by banning law-abiding citizens from owning firearms, that gun crime will go down. If someone is already breaking the law, they won't have reservations about getting their hands on a firearm.
It just puts the law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 07:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. It did nothing for the US. Still massive crime rate compared to non-gun countries.
2. A pistol is NOT a good self defense weapon. It takes more time to ready than any other weapon & it is pretty hard to hit the target.
1. Correlation does not imply causation. A lot of people die in hospitals, does that mean hospitals don't do anything?
2. Spoken like a person who has never used a pistol. If someone breaks into your house and isn't actually in the same room as you, you have plenty of time to get ready and shoot the intruder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 07:34 PM |
|
|
I know I'm not active on this discussion but I do read it and I'm asking for proof here:
Quote:
It takes more time to ready than any other weapon
Because I don't agree at all.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 17, 2012 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I find funny is that people think by banning law-abiding citizens from owning firearms, that gun crime will go down. If someone is already breaking the law, they won't have reservations about getting their hands on a firearm.
It just puts the law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage.
If you check some other countries (like Canada or Germany for example), you will see how wrong this conclusion is...
It is quite easy: If YOU do not expect to meet someone with a gun, you DO NOT carry one yourself. As easy as it may sound, this is how it works (at least outisde of the states.. ).
Of course there are burglaries in Germany aswell. But you never hear or read of dead people during a burglary...or a car stealing or whatever.
But we had that discussion already many times here. As long as you do not live OUTSIDE of the USA, you won't believe it.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Kain777999
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted June 19, 2012 01:07 PM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 20 Jun 2012. |
Edited by Corribus at 00:55, 20 Jun 2012.
|
On the debate of gun ownership:
Do I think people should be allowed to carry guns?
Yes BUT! They should undergo psychological screening first. If they are declared "unfit" then no ofcourse not.
Should people be allowed to have guns on their property?
Well yeah, where else are you going to put them?
If you ignore the "people carrying guns" thing, people should have the right to posses firearms. Governments, cops, armed forces. All of these things are there to (in theory) keep us safe, but they are not infallible, hell in my country they are plain corrupt and inept. You should be able to take your safety into your own hands, after all everything has a price tag these days, and I think I can afford something better than some underfunded local police station.
Does gun possession by an innocent person help prevent that person from being a victim?
Let me answer this with a question, would you try to rob somebody, who was carrying a .50AE Desert Eagle?
Do you break into a house, knowing full well that the person who owns it may very well have an automatic firearm on the premises?
At the very least it will thin the gene pool a bit.
One thing to remember, gun ownership only affects people who obey the law, criminals will always get access to weapons one way or another. When talking about gun laws you should think in two ways, how it will impact on lawful people, and what the unlawful will do to circumvent it.
Should a person have the right to defend himself or should everyone be forced to rely on the government alone for self defense?
It really depends where you are, if a country on this planet ever evolves into a utopian society, sure people do not need to defend themselves. However in the real world where cops are a minority of the populace, underfunded, poorly trained and human (corruptible, fallible) then there are times when people are going to have to look after themselves.
Deadly force debate:
Let me answer this with two stories, one was in the news in Australia a few months ago, and the second happened to me.
1. A burglar broke into a man's house, the burglar was armed with a taser. The owner of the house heard a disturbance, he went downstairs, grabbed a knife and got the jump on the burglar, the burglar died. Police were uncertain whether or not to charge the man with murder. In a country where police can only react to crime it seems a bit absurd, and it is.
2. When I was in my senior year of high school (or secondary school), I always used to walk from school to where my father worked, because it was good exercise, also it meant I did not have to sit on a cramped school bus for about an hour. I always went through the local park, it was peaceful of sorts, and cut time off of the walk, one day I notice a shabby guy following me, I take some notice but not particularly worried (190cm tall and rather big build, people never really worry me). On the way I am walking through I pass by the public toilets, this time he runs up and grabs me, knocking me into the wall. I get up rather mad, he draws a knife and starts to try and threaten me. Before he tells me what he wants, I grab his wrist, dislocate it, take the knife and I turn it on him. I then leave him slumped on the ground trying to hold his entrails in his stomach. Even now I feel no remorse, no guilt and certainly no intentions of ever feeling sorry.
For the record I never called the police, as far as I know the guy could be alive or dead , if I could do anything differently now, I would make 100% sure of the latter.
This may sound extreme, but if someone really threatens me I take it deadly seriously, if someone is willing to threaten me with a weapon then I see no difference between that and a kill or be killed situation. And I would rather die trying to defend myself than die in supplication to another.
I apologise if this view is untasteful or overly violent.
Now, as to whether I would do that on another person's behalf?
That really depends, different situations call for different viewpoints, to use the "classic" scenario, the weak good vs. the evil strong. Yes I would, no brainer. As for anything else it falls in that grey area, I would just trust myself to do what I feel to be right.
MOD EDIT: Nice post. Keep up the good work!
____________
Cheers
Kaine
Si vis pacem fac bellum
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2012 01:58 PM |
|
|
You know what I'm always asking me when I read this nonsense about gun ownership and everyone should be allowed to have one?
Why have a police force? I mean, hell, do we need them? Nah, not really. We can police our own turf just right, and let's face it, if you really need the police it's never there.
I mean, with a firearm at home we decide everything related to property ourselves: someone makes a mistake and puts a foot on our turf, when it's dark or in a threatening way - WHAM! Take him down - he's bound to have a firearm himself, probably concealed, and why would he come anyway, except to rob you of your hard earned money that you hoard under the pillow since these banks and finance people are untrustworthy and should be put to a painful death anyway?
And firearms while on the road - that would be it, right? All those threatening suicide drivers, changing lanes all the time, sideswiping you, speeding or - worse - not making room fast enough, if it so happens that you are REALLY in a hurry ... Wouldn't it be just great, if you could just open fire and slam the punks really good?
Ah, at least they should allow duels again. Fastest gun in the West - ah, those were the days. Imagine sitting in a bar and someone is eying your girl. And you look at him sharply - but he's still eying her. Until you coolly push your jacket back to show your holster and tell the geek, that this bar isn't big enough for him und yourself and he had now two option: piss off or draw.
A pity that things have become so lukewarm.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 19, 2012 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But we had that discussion already many times here. As long as you do not live OUTSIDE of the USA, you won't believe it.
I hope you do not believe that my opposition to disarmament stems from what occurs in the USA. My views stem from atrocities committed in Zimbabwe, China, Armenia, and Germany.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2012 03:09 PM |
|
|
|
I personnaly think that the presence of police and military forces and armed civilians isn't synonym of security. quite the contrary
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted June 20, 2012 01:48 AM |
|
|
Is there anybody here but me who would prefer a regular bat (not the creepy thing with wings) over a firearm for home security? If you have a family then you probably are going to have to hide your firearm which will make it less available when needed. A bat on the other hand could be placed anywhere and even a woman or child could knock out a burglar with one well placed swing and keep the burglar disabled until law enforcers arrive.
And if firearms are leagal for law-abiding citizens, then how do you identify a potential murderer or robber among the law-abiding citizens? Skin colour? Wealth? Criminal record? Political and moral views? Would it not be much better to identify a criminal wether they got a weapon or not? I realize that even though firearms would be much rarer, criminals seem to be fond of aquiring illeagal stuff in illeagal ways. But surely there are other ways to fight the scum that law-abiding citizens are almost defenceless against. A few examples are a stronger law enforcement, security cameras/alarms and fighting what causes criminality like poverty and corruption.
I do not believe that a truly good democratic society need to fear that the government can grow so corrupt that the people will have to take up arms to regain control. And even if a government did decide to separate itself from the people and rule with an ironfist, then handguns, knives and numbers will not help at all against high-tech weapons of the military. And providing high-tech weapons to citizens would not really help either.
To the americans: I know that few would actually choose to live with weapons unless they thought it was for the best and maybe it is for the best of modern USA. Afterall, it is clear that Europe intends to lure the american citizens to let their guard down and then recolonize the states. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2012 02:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I know I'm not active on this discussion but I do read it and I'm asking for proof here:
Quote:
It takes more time to ready than any other weapon
Because I don't agree at all.
Try Police statistics. I don't have the time to look for sources but at the distance below 7 meters (iirc. Or was it 9 meters) the knife guy wins every time against unprepared Police officer trying to ready his pistol. If you really want to, I might look for source, but you can just take my word that this isn't made up on the spot as I'm not really eager to go through hundreds of pages to find up stuff I read about years ago.
Quote:
1. Correlation does not imply causation. A lot of people die in hospitals, does that mean hospitals don't do anything?
2. Spoken like a person who has never used a pistol. If someone breaks into your house and isn't actually in the same room as you, you have plenty of time to get ready and shoot the intruder.
1. Check Canada(or, if you want a country with more than 20 million people - check Germany or France?,then check US. Statistics are quite brutal. I don't really understand what are you getting at with your hospital analogy, too. It doesn't seem fitting at all. It's not a secret that US has very high crime rates at some states or cities, and free gun ownership just doesn't change a damn. So much for El's "deterrent" factor.
2. The situation given by you - "someone in your home & not in the same room & you're aware that he is there while he's oblivious of possible consequences" is just as probable as having the burglar break his neck trying to jump over your fence. Ask yourself, how are houses robbed? Without any statistics & without will to read through them, I can't give you direct answers, but my probably accurate guess is that:
A. Most of the crimes happens when you're out of home or sleeping
B. The attacker picks up such opportunity that you are pretty much unable to react. Robberies are usually scouted (house is observed for a long time before getting robbed, usually... check Police reports) so the burglars probably know where you are (or where you aren't) and what to expect of you.
C. If you are able to react, you must be aware that in a gun-free country he's extremely likely to also have a gun and being ready to use it on sight when caught red-handed, making this a 50-50 who-shoots-first scenario, which is obviously over the top with the risk factor.
Add those together and you'll see how USELESS it is to "protect" yourself with a gun. Get a modern alarm system and a big dog, voila. No stupid guns needed.
As angelito said, SOME guys living in US might have a hard time understanding this, but in Europe we don't really need guns to protect ourselves & it works extremely well. I haven't heard any news about home robbed (with casualties) in Poland in AGES. And I read news every day.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
