Summations Only

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? But I have, you're just not realizing the ramifications of what you are saying. For the fourth time now, I don't think anyone deserves to die for committing any crime. 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. 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. Not enough info to decide. No, just the crimes where the perpetrator has a deadly weapon. 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"? Each situation is different and they need to be judge on a case by case basis. Yes, people have a fundamental right to self-defense.

In the context of self-defense, your property is an extension of your self.

quote:

---

The early theories (on self-defense) make no distinction between defense of the person and defense of property. Whether consciously or not, this builds on the Roman Law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the pater familias — the male head of the household, sole owner of all property belonging to the household, and endowed by law with dominion over all his descendants through the male line no matter their age.

​

...

​

In the Two Treatises of Government, John Locke asserts the reason why an owner would give up their autonomy:

​

...the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

​

...

​

For modern theorists, the question of self-defense is one of moral authority within the nation to set the limits to obedience to the state and its laws given the pervasive dangers in a world full of weapons. In modern societies, states are increasingly delegating or privatizing their coercive powers to corporate providers of security services either to supplement or replace components within the power hierarchy. The fact that states no longer claim a monopoly to police within their borders, enhances the argument that individuals may exercise a right or privilege to use violence in their own defense. Indeed, modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right, and in all cases, with no exceptions, justifies all uses of violence stemming from this right, regardless whether in defense of the person or property. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

​

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

​

The inclusion of defense of one's family and home recognizes the universal benefit claimed to stem from the family's peaceable possession of private property.

​

source

---

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.

Agreed, and that's a much better way to phrase it too.

Nor can they be killed.

You gave me 5 words. Obviously. They'll empty a magazine into a guy. You can easily commit suicide by cop.You going somewhere?

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. 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, knifeWhere 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? I don't. But you think burglary is a minor crime... I think that someone breaking into my house is a major crime, very near the top. No. 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? 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. 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". When you kill someone in self-defense, you are not punishing them for committing a crime. You are protecting yourself.

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:

---

Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right.
-Mitch Hedberg

---

People are using said inanimate object for killing other people. Stealing isn't so bad, but rapers and murderers should not get a 2nd chance.

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". 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. For the fifth time now: I don't think anyone deserves to die for any crime. 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? 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? That last one is wrong.

I've talked about needing a gun exactly zero time in our discussion. You just changed the subject. We were talking about someone breaking into someone else's home. No, I mean someone who has broken into someone else's home. As I thought, you don't think that people have the right to defend themselves. That's terrible.

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.

Of course not. As I've said, you could use your fist. You don't need a court to tell you that someone who has broken into your house has committed a crime. 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?

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. 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. 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. There really isn't anything that I care more about than my own life (I don't have a family). 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. 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.

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:

---

1. Where there are more homicide there is more guns (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that homicide is a risk factor for gun availability, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide, there are more guns.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more homicide = more guns.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where there are more homicides, guns are more available. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

3. Across states, more homicide = more guns

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide, have many guns.

​

4. Across states, more homicide = more guns(2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between homicide and gun availability across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide had higher levels of household gun ownership. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between non-firearm homicide and gun prevalence.

---

Would you still have used it?

You got any evidence for that assertion?