Warning, wall of text.
Originally
posted by
mrford:
I'm sorry Sifos, but your beliefs are a bit too idealistic for te real world. I have a little different viewpoint.
I will do whatever it takes to protecty wife, my kids, my family, and my property. (...)
In my personal experience, the best way to donthis "protecting" is to eleminate or incapacitate the threat as quickly as possible, otherwise the situation could escalate in an unfavorable manner. (...)
Justice isn't the goal, neutralizing the threat as fast as possible is.
Too idealistic? I could actually say the same about your stance. "More weapons everywhere (including in my home that I can use as means to defend my family) will mean that my family is more secure". No, statistics prove you wrong.
It's not that I see where you're comming from. If I saw someone closing in on a family/friend in a hostile manner with some type of weapon, and I had one as well, I would likely use it. If I had no weapon I would probably wish I did. I'm arguing from a more general point of view. Less guns = good. In the same way that there are situational benefits for being able to be armed, there are benefits to not being able to be armed, and these are proven by statistics to be far greater.
Originally
posted by
Angel1:
Locket, I don't pretend to know what will and will not or does and does not work in other countries. I expect that it would be relatively easy to ban guns if the government has kept a relatively short leash on who could own guns for a long time. (...)
It is a human right, at the very least, to defend yourself and your family from harm. Any laws that outright ban this effort, are clearly contrary to humanity itself. (...)
Yep, if you guys tried to restrict guns you would have an uphill. I would say that your nationalism would pose a bigger challenge than the practicalities though. Turning people from the second amendment is a huge one.
Branding something as a "human right" has always struck me as a weak argument, as I never realized by whose authority this is stated. It could be used to substitue the overall conscensus in some cases, but it'd be better to just write this then. And yes, you should be able to go to some lengths to protect yourself or even your assets when you're the object of a crime, but using lethal force in the case of possible loss of an asset... that's sick.
Originally
posted by
Angel1:
See, now that's a perfectly reasonable response to all this. Telling people the way it is in Australia with regard to guns, but not judging the US for allowing guns as much as we do.(...)
Let's say a bank robber decides to run out of a stand off with police guns blazing. (...)
When you're in your own home, then all bets are off and you can use whatever force you need to.
It's a perfectly good response because it agrees with your point of view? If all arguments that doesn't agree with your point of view are by default unrational, what are you doing arguing with those who think differently?
This situation is quite different from the "having been sprayed with pepper spray" one above. If you have a gun and kill someone who is shooting at you, naturally there should be very small punishment, or none at all, given that you can prove that you did no provocations and couldn't divert the situation.
Little good are likely to come from that mindset...
Originally
posted by
Angel1:
You're missing the point entirely. It's not crime-counter crime, it's crime-self defense. Actions that may be a crime in one circumstance may simply be self-defense in another. Self-defense is not a crime, it's a human right. We're not letting people do despite them having committed a crime, we're saying that there is no crime when you act in reasonable self defense.
As to beating your wife in your home, I am disgusted by that statement. The wife has a right to be in the home; a burglar does not. More on this when I get back from work.
I'm not arguing against that, and it's well compatible with what I'm arguing (besides the human right part). Reasonable self defence is not the same as being able to do anything in any situation.
I realize those examples were not the best.
Originally
posted by
Garry Owen:
People who think that average citizens should be able to take the time to calmly work out that the criminals where pepper-spraying him to 'reduce the level of violence' are idiots who have never been in a stressful life/death situation.
First, it is a long-standing point of common law that if something bad happens during the commission of a crime the fault is - legally and morally - on the criminal. Not on any innocent person who is forced to take action because of the criminal acts.
Second, when all the chips are on the table the stakes are too high to ponder what is exactly the right level of force to use. Even trained, professional military (...)
Really? If they wanted violence, why didn't they just shoot him? Clearly they had to pay costly for incapacitating rather than killing.
So, you believe that if someone steals your purse you shouldn't be punished for shooting to kill rather than say shooting the criminal in the leg? I wouldn't call someone who does that "innocent".
Your second argument is good though. This naturally needs to be taken into account when judging in such cases. But at the same time I'd argue it's good thing if people facing these kinds of situations know that they're not going to get a free card to do whatever they damn well please.
Originally
posted by
Pain:
like angel said, its not a counter crime, its self defense. (...)
to be fair i wont pretend to be billy badass. in the event of a home invasion i would likely take the burglar on by surprise (if possible and give him a split second to surrender (at gun point of course, great persausion) if i feel at any time that they arent going to do so then i will use whatever amount of force i feel is necessary to neutralize that situation. if they have a gun there will be no hesitation on my part.
So murder is morally wrong whereas theft is not. As long as anyone pose any threat at all, it's all ok since it can be branded self defence...
In this very post I'm adressing arguments stemming from the induced stress in the situation. Would it be such a farcry for you to understand that if you surprise said burglar at gun point, you're putting that person in a similar situation? It gives an interesting example: Burglar is on your property thereby putting you in stressfull situation. You threaten burglar at gun point, likely a way more stressfull situation. Does this mean the burglar may use whatever force necessary to prevent you from killing said burglar?
What if it's a street theft, invalidating any "castle doctrine" thinking? What if it's just some guy who came up and smacked you/your friend/love, and then started walking away when you stop him waving a gun? Where do you draw the line?
Originally
posted by
Junky:
I'm thinking, if everyone carried a gun of sorts, even a small bb shooting gun, Criminals would be less likely to do Criminal things, that said, you shouldn't let just anyone have a gun, zealous people abound will take to doing stupid stuff like taking the law into their own hands... but how many people will try and rob a place if everyone in there is packing... probly will be a 0% chance to be robbed.. if a person is brave enough to enter a house, they aren't just gonna be without a weapon.. speacially in rough neighborhoods...
Background checks on everyone who wants to get a gun are a must... I believe Guns should have designated shopping areas... and not be in every Walmart.
If everyone would have gun, it would mean that criminals would adapt to this. They would surely pack guns as well, whereas they may not otherwise. They would, quite nedless to say this, have to be way more brutal and more organized. You're more prone to "shoot first, ask later" when you know there's a larger possibility of counter violence. And yes, this is exactly what you get... Check statistics...
I'm glad that you realize at least that guns at walmart is bad idea :)