|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 20 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted January 05, 2012 02:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That makes her a murderer.
True, but its just a word, so its fairly irrelevant in the first place to call her a murderer.
And I think my stance on guns has changed since my last posts in the thread.
Allowing guns makes sense if the law enforcement is not capable of doing what needs to be done, there is rampant criminality in the society, and similar. Allowing guns is a sympthom of society, but if it first is a sympton there is nothing wrong with it.
We in our Scandinavian glass houses has so far no need for such a thing, because our rate of crime is low enough. Except if you are living in certain parts of Oslo, ghettoes of Kopenhavn, or some of the more lawless areas of Sweden that is.
Until USA fixes with problem with its false democracy, its poverty and class warfare, the crimerate, the funding of drug gangs, and several more issues, I don't think banning guns would make sense in the first place.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2012 05:44 PM |
|
|
allowing guns makes sense economically.
as if they cared about your self-defense. as long as they can keep you scared and you keep giving them money to feel protected.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 05, 2012 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
allowing guns makes sense economically.
as if they cared about your self-defense. as long as they can keep you scared and you keep giving them money to feel protected.
...which deters any hope for things ever becoming better in the US.
No need to change a functioning system.So the 1%.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 05, 2012 06:55 PM |
|
|
There was also this case of a prominent actor from around here who ended up in jail for 4 years, and is now sought by the state of Montenegro because he was sentenced over there for 13 more, because three guys attacked him and his brother in Montenegro and, while being kicked on the floor, he managed to take out his handgun, kill two of the assailants, and wound the third one.
They attacked him out of nowhere, presumably because he acted in controversial, anti-regime, anti-war theater plays.
The court presumed that the assailants didn't have the intention of killing him and that he crossed the line of necessary self defence.
**** that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2012 10:30 PM |
|
|
Ok, just one simple question:
If it's legal to sell weapons, and if it's legal to buy weapons, and all of this without any preconditions, limiting rules and so on - can anyone tell me why it would or should be illegal to do the same thing with drugs? Sex?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 01:40 AM |
|
|
I'm fine with people selling sex. I don't get what is so horrible with it. This is my body, if I want to use it to sell sex then let me do it.
Weapons are always wrong. Self-defense does not mean becoming a killer yourself.
Not sure on drugs, don't know how addictive and dangerous cannabis is or isn't. I think the whole "war on drugs" feels a bit overprioritized, atleast here I think that the police should have other stuff to prioritize.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 02:26 AM |
|
|
I hope we can stick to the thread topic rather than discussing the pros and cons of selling booty or drugs. I'm sure a thread called, "I should be able to run a Midnight special on my booty" would make for interesting discussion though. 
I think it is rather harsh to call a woman a murderer for defending herself and her baby. Should she have tried to shoot the knife out of the home invader's hands? That is not realistic. Odds are she aimed for center of mass, the man's chest area, where a person in her situation should generally aim. She was frightened and in real life danger, not in a Hollywood movie.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 09:37 AM |
|
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 12:33 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:42, 06 Jan 2012.
|
You showed him JJ.
Lol.
To be frank, the woman could have aimed for the knees or something, though. But you can't really think too straight in a situation like that. Or, well, if you do think straight - since it's equally legal to kill the guy, and it's easier, and practically better because there's no risk of his revenge, him getting out of prison and coming after you or anything like that, why would you just wound him? Doesn't make sense. Doesn't give you an incentive not to kill him.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
|
|
What's funny is that she had the time and the nerves to make a whole 'mommy, mommy, can I shoot the bad guy, mommy' conversation on the phone but not to aim or just to point the thing at the intruder and force him to stay put until the cops arrive. And the text doesn't really say how threatened she was, only that some guy has entered the house or something. I'm not against using force - even lethal force - for self-defense but this attitude that everyone who crosses the doorstep can be shot dead if you haven't invited him is just...
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 03:57 PM |
|
|
Meh, I have no sympathy for people who break into other peoples' houses. You do that and get shot, tough for you.
Actually I think the more interesting part of the story is that the other perp, who turned himself in, is likely to be charged with 1st degree murder. Apparently the law can assign blame for the one burglar's death to the other burglar, because the death happened during the course of committing a crime - even if the other criminal didn't actually kill him.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 04:07 PM |
|
|
Yeah, because it's unheard of to steal out of necessity and not because you are a pathologic robber/murderer but why not shoot them all democratically and ask questions later... 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 04:21 PM |
|
|
The perps in question were after drugs, and both of them were armed.
____________
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
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 05:02 PM |
|
|
|
That's in this case (by the way this is not mentioned in Elodin's excerpt and his 'clicky' is leading not where it's supposed to) but your statement sounds more like 'if he's in the house without permission, he deserves a bullet in the head no matter what'. Which is what I disagree with.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 05:48 PM |
|
|
Not it deserves, but he puts himself in danger. What would you do if middle night you hear two big guys breaking in your house? Do we have the time to evaluate the risks, is it possible that they may threat our life or just looking for some money? How will they react if they see you? What if your family is also there?
I don't think we can give realistic answer to any of those questions. If you have a gun, protect yourself. If someone dies, you did not ask him to break in. He knew what he was doing. The only problem with weapons legality is the rampage. If burglars know you can have one, they will certainly bring one as well. And where are weapons on both sides, it almost always ends in blood.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 05:58 PM |
|
|
|
You are right, I don't know because I've never been in such situation. But this whole thing sounds stupid. Some woman spends time on the phone asking some controller if it will be OK to shoot someone if he breaks in the house, the controller says 'sure it is' and the woman shoots him. Put this way it look like she wanted to make sure that she won't end up with a sentence for manslaughter and has fully intended to shoot him in the first place. If there is any immediate danger, will you waste time for such nonsenses at all? 'Wait, don't attack yet, let me call 911 to get my shooting permission first!' Heh.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 06:09 PM |
|
|
The woman called 911 before the perps had broken into her house. She heard them at the door, testing the lock. She called 911 at that point and asked for police help. 911 operator asked if the doors were locked. Woman said yes and then told the operator she had a firearm, and asked (quite wisely, actually) what her legal rights were should they break in. At this point she has time to ask these questions, because nobody had broken into the house yet.
When the perps actually kick the door down and are charging at her with a knife, she doesn't really have much time to make a decision at that point. Not sure what you've got an issue with about her asking the 911 operator for clarification of what she should do IF the perps made it into her house. Those are two completely different situations.
I can tell you that if I'm in my house alone with my baby in the other room, and two men kick in my door and charge at me with knives in their hands, and I've got a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun in my posession, you're damned right I'm gonna use it.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 06:31 PM |
|
|
I'm not objecting against using the weapon if you are threatened (or somebody else around you is) but against using it simply because someone has broken into your house. Like I stated twice already, the circumstances about this thing were not made clear in Elodin's initial post on the matter so let me make it clear:
- if there is any immediate danger, I'm totally FOR using force to protect yourself and your family;
- I am however totally AGAINST using force against someone just because he has broken into your house AND there is a way to neutralize him without killing him. I.e. if you shoot him on sight without even giving a warning from the staircase on the second floor while he's 10 meters away and is not even looking at you because he's trespassing (just an example) - this qualifies for a murder in my book.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 06:35 PM |
|
|
Or you don't let people run around with guns in the first place.
But obviously having a gun in your pocket is considered to be an obvious human right!
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 06:38 PM |
|
|
|
The problem is that only police is trained to handle with warnings. If you warn the burglar you have a weapon, he may get his weapon too, if any. And then the situation turns clearly at your disadvantage. Seeking for fairness could cost your life.
|
|
|
|
