|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In the sense of preventing (further) bodily harm to yourself? It is a form of defence. Lesson 1 in any martial arts "self defence" class will tell you this. So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property. How can you defend your property by running away? Is running away the only form of "self-defense" that you can think of that does not have the capacity to be lethal?
Okay, well you've not been reading my posts. But I have, you're just not realizing the ramifications of what you are saying.
My whole argument here has been about trying to ascertain whether you think someone deserves to die for, e.g. committing burglary, For the fourth time now, I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime.
and whether or not you think the the general public are best equipped to act as judge, jury and executioner, and administer that punishment. Self-defense is not administering a punishment. And in a situation where you need to defend yourself, you are the only one there who can act as judge and jury.
Possession of a gun allows for a split second decision or reflex to result in the immediate death of someone. a fist or a frying pan? not so much. But you phrased your argument as being that the average person should not have the capacity for lethal force. The ramification of that is removing their right to self-defense.
Do YOU consider it to be self defence, do you consider it to be a reasonable course of action to safeguard your DVD player? Not enough info to decide.
What you are doing is assuming that every crime committed presents an immediate danger to the victim's life, and is only defensible by lethal force. No, just the crimes where the perpetrator has a deadly weapon.
You provided the original list of gun deaths, you tell me. If "Burglary" is listed as the reason for the shooting, I assume"Burglary" was the crime being commited. If "Assault" was listed as the reason for the shouting, I assume the crime being committed was "Assault". I didn't look at the details of each one, it was a large cut n paste. Which one are you referring to as the "burglary"?
If I come downstairs and catch someone stealing my DVD player, is the correct/reasonable action to blow his brains out? Each situation is different and they need to be judge on a case by case basis.
allowing people to arm themselves with guns... you are allowing a situation where every startled victim of crime has the power to instantly without thought or reflection blow someone elses brains out. Yes, people have a fundamental right to self-defense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So people have a right to self-defense that includes defending their property.
Your property is not your self. In the context of self-defense, your property is an extension of your self.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then what is it you call using a gun not to kill but to stop a behavior? You could call it: "Shooting them in the leg." I get that you shouldn't point your gun at someone that you're not willing to kill, but that doesn't mean that you cannot point your gun at someone without intending to kill them. I don't think that purpose defines intent, so to say that a gun is designed to kill therefore your intent has to be to kill is a bad argument. And the combat training a soldier receives with an M-16 is gonna be different than that of a civilian carrying a handgun in public, so just because that's the training you got doesn't mean its the training that everyone gets. You're right that you shouldn't point your gun at someone if you're not willing to kill them, but that doesn't mean that you cannot point it at them without intending to kill them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you point a weapon at something, you better be ready to kill it. Agreed, and that's a much better way to phrase it too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Police targets don't have legs. You could call it: "Shooting them in the leg." Nor can they be killed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Try to keep up. You gave me 5 words.
Police are not trained to, "Shoot them in the legs." It's always, "Shoot to kill." Obviously. They'll empty a magazine into a guy. You can easily commit suicide by cop. You going somewhere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
it's not about "capacity" Well that's what you said and that's what we've been arguing about. I can't read your mind, I can only go by what you say.
it's about ease, speed and the possibility of accidental death. With a firearm it is easy for an average joe, untrained and startled to make a bad judgement and kill someone. It's not so easy to "accidentally" beat someone to death. All weapons have some amount of those qualities. You're on a slippery slope if you don't have some way of drawing a line between them. Gun, Bow, Atlatl, Spear, Katana, Bo-staff, baseball bat, cender block, brick, knife Where does a weapon become too difficult and slow to be allowable for a person to have? And on that note, why would I want to limit myself to defending myself with inferior weapons?
So why do you want to allow every citizen to be armed? I don't.
Call it what you will, semantics, the end result is death, in many cases for a minor crime, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But you think burglary is a minor crime... I think that someone breaking into my house is a major crime, very near the top.
Do you think that everyone has the skills and the level head to make a correct decision in this case? No.
to make their actions proportionate to the "need"? There is nobody else there to assess the need besides the person who is defending themself. Ya know, the perpetrator could just not commit crimes, right? Why are you so quick to defend the criminals at the expense of the victims?
by your logic, anyone with functioning limbs has a deadly weapon, so that would mean every crime? Well no, I mean, there's jaywalking... You have to be being assaulted to invoke self-defense. And yes, entering my home is assaulting me.
I didn't look at the details of each one, it was a large cut n paste. Which one are you referring to as the "burglary"?
maybe you should read what you post?from your list: quote: Okay. Two men broke into their house. Someone who lived there shot at them. They missed. Nobody was hurt. The criminals ran away. That's a pretty bad example of "shooting someone dead for burglary".
Yes, people have a fundamental right to self-defense.
how can you reconcile this with:
For the fourth time now, I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime. When you kill someone in self-defense, you are not punishing them for committing a crime. You are protecting yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why are we arguing gun control, when alcohol related deaths are much more frequent? This thread was in direct response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. But gun crimes makes more sensational news. And alcoholism gets no respect:
quote: Why are we blaming an inanimate object for the problems PEOPLE are causing? People are using said inanimate object for killing other people.
As for criminals, why should we give them another chance to rape/kill or steal from someone else that cannot protect themselves? Stealing isn't so bad, but rapers and murderers should not get a 2nd chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you advocate gun control? I don't advocate. You asked me why I want to allow every citizen to be armed. I could think of citizens that I wouldn't want to allow to be armed, so the answer to your question is "I don't".
why are we arguing? Firstly, you confused self-defense as being the victim administering the death penalty to the perpetrator for committing a crime. Then, you said that the average person shouldn't have a gun because of the gun's capacity to be lethal.
A crime that the burglar deserves to die for? For the fifth time now: I don't think anyone deserves to die for any crime.
And you have admitted that you don't think the average Joe is equipped to make the right decision in such a case No I haven't. You asked me if I thought everyone has the skills and level head to make the right decision. Since I could think of people who do not have those skills, or others without the level head, then the answer to your question was "no". But I do think the average person is equipped to make those decisions. Unfortunately, when you put someone in the position of having to defend themselves, there is nobody else there to be the one to make the decision. I'd rather error on the side of the victim though, because, you know, the perpetrator is the one who is on the offense. They can just not assault people. Why should they get any benefit of the doubt?
So, in this case no one was killed, but the next guy? and the next? Excuse me? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who are breaking into other peoples' houses? Why should I just accept that there are going to be more and more people breaking into houses and not allow the victims to do anything about it? Why don't you do anything to stop people from breaking into houses? Why are you so focused on the victims and their right to defend themselves? Where does this love of the criminal and hatred of the victim stem from? What is wrong with you?
You have some massive conflicts here: On the one hand - You believe everyone has the right to self defense, - You believe removing the capacity for lethal force "eliminates" a persons ability to defend themselves - You believe in the right to bear arms of US (world?) citizens however- You do not believe the average person has the ability to make a sound judgement about how and when to use a firearm That last one is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
so you don't need a gun to shoot at burglars then. I've talked about needing a gun exactly zero time in our discussion.
The victim is often the person shot dead when mistaken for an intruder, for being in the wrong neighbourhood at the wrong time, for being a child who picks up a parent's gun, for being in the cinema/office/classroom when a nutball goes postal. You just changed the subject. We were talking about someone breaking into someone else's home.
You mean people who are suspected of breaking into other peoples houses? No, I mean someone who has broken into someone else's home.
well, because I believe in due process, I believe that everyone has the right to be tried in a court of law, and not have their brains summarily blown out by a frightened gun toting idiot. As I thought, you don't think that people have the right to defend themselves. That's terrible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Unprovoked killing sprees are going to happen. You know what else is going to happen? People are going to try to defend themselves. Why you defend it as inevitable when its the perpetrator of a crime doing it but then get all offensive when its the victim of a crime doing it really boggles the mind. I just don't get this tolerance for criminal action and intolerance victim action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So a gun isn't necessary for self defence? Of course not. As I've said, you could use your fist.
So, you don't think a court should decide if a crime has been commited? You don't need a court to tell you that someone who has broken into your house has committed a crime.
You equate due process and the principal of innocent until proven guilty with taking away peoples right to defend themselves? Its the logical extension of your argument. When confronted with a burglar who didn't get killed when shot at, your response was: "what about the next guy? and the next?" So first off, you treat burglary as an acceptable inevitability. You're already condoning the crime at the expense of the victim. Then, when I ask you why you defend the criminals, you respond that they are only suspected of a crime. But since it is illegal to break into peoples' houses, if someone has broken into a house then we know, beyond suspicion, that they have committed a crime. So again you give the criminal the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the victim. Finally, you say that the criminal has a right to due process before the victim acts. Well, what about the victim's right to not have his house broken into? Where's their due process? Oh that's right, the criminal took that away from them when they broke into the house. The criminal waves his right to due process when he eliminates the same right from his victim. The victim has the right to defend themself before the criminal has the right to due process. If you want to allow that criminal the right to due process (after breaking into someone's house), then you have to remove the right of the victim to defend themself. How else could you do it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
C'mon CS - you know full well that people who oppose widespread gun ownership, don't do so out of any tolerance of criminal action. But that's the logical extension of some of the arguments. Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people. And Heathens response to someone breaking into a house is to wait for a judge and a jury because the guy who has just broken into the house is just a suspect and has the right to due process, despite the fact that home owner's rights have already been removed by the criminal. Too they gloss over the criminal action as inevitable but don't give the same tolerance to the inevitability of people trying to defend themselves.
In general, in a society, widespread gun ownership will lead to more violent deaths than are prevented in the circumstances I've just referred to. That's because of who is using the guns more. Most homicides from guns are in urban areas with high poverty and low education. Those factors impact the number of homicides more that just the presence of guns does.
defenders of widespread gun ownership For the record, I don't want there to be a wide spread of gun ownership. Way too many bad guys have guns. The problem is that people want to impose blanket laws that apply to everybody. Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals. I don't want my ability to have a gun limited so that only the criminals are going to have guns.
the concept of an absolute right to self defence. Nothing is more important. There really isn't anything that I care more about than my own life (I don't have a family).
But I feel that we should, in the pursuit of the sanctity of life, in the pursuit of a civilised society, and in the pursuit of a safe environment, seek to limit our right to self defence to the most reasonable extent we can. I think we should focus on the criminals and leave the victims alone. If you want to pursue the sanctity of life, a civilised society, and a safe environment, then you should fight crime, not go after the people who are defending themselves against it.
And advocating a society in which we allow every person to arm themselves to the teeth with lethal weapons, strikes me as advocating a very unreasonable restraint on self-defence. Spoken like a true subject But its funny that you see legal allowance as being actual arming. Arming yourself to the teeth is very expensive and allowing people to do it does not provide them the means to do so. And I see focusing on restraining self-defense instead of focusing on preventing the crimes as being way more unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. Since we know that correlation doesn't imply causation, I wonder how you'd feel about the article if they phrased it the other way:
quote: Would you still have used it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You got any evidence for that assertion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024