Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

For starters it wasn’t very wise of the "prepper" to give a quantitative figure on how many weapons he owns or his other assets. By this it looks like they found someone at the shallowest end of the gene pool that also happens to be a prepper. The prepper school of thought covers a wide spectrum.

Unless your head is buried really deep in the sand it doesn’t take much fact based imagination to see what a precarious situation civilization or even the word is in. This could even be a local issue in the aftermath of natural disaster like what we had with hurricane Katrina as just one example. There were a lot of people up sh*t creek without a paddle all the sudden in New Orleans.
I can go over and over events just in the US where there has been at least a temporary loss of services and breakdown of rule of law so this isn’t about fantasy or paranoia.

The goal of the prepper is to survive or be better prepared to survive. True, some of them go too far at the expense of living a normal life in the present but that’s just the way of human nature.
Also, the type of prepper that eagerly desires a breakdown of society isn’t the kind of person I want anywhere near me. It is apparent that they are dangerously out of touch with reality and a potential liability in the event of an actual catastrophe. However, they are just part of the world we live in and we can’t sort them out from the rest.

Am I a prepper?
To some extent, yes. I do take some steps of preparation in the potential event of suspension of services and/or temporary breakdown of rule of law.
If you keep even a small stash of “just in case” items like canned food or MRE’s, drinking water, extra batteries, a generator and fuel, candles, camp stove, etc… then you are a prepper, too.
It’s obvious that making no preparations at all for “just in case” that if or when “just in case” does come you’ll only add to the burden of relief efforts and slow overall recovery. Everyone should be a prepper to some extent or another BUT as long as we live in a FREE society it can’t really be mandated.


By comparison, we wear our seatbelts in case we are in an accident, not because we want to have one.
Same logic applies but on a different scale.



There really is no divide nor should there be. You can be both a collector and a prepper or whatever….

Like I said, both would help. Fighting poverty and social injustice prevents violent crimes that are caused by economic desperation. Whereas taking guns out of the hands of civilians prevents people from shooting their spouse in the heat of the moment over a domestic disagreement. It also prevents antisocial kids from taking their father's .45 to school and shooting their math teacher. Not all crime is caused by poverty.



I think I already explained that in relation to German school shootings.



No one except the police. Of course they're likely not around when I'm being robbed in some dark alley, but I'd rather hand over my wallet than take the chance to draw a gun on a criminal who is also pointing a gun at me. Chances are that he'll shoot first.

Btw, I've never been robbed, burglarized or assaulted in Germany. The only time I've been robbed was in the streets of Amsterdam, where I suddenly had a knife at my throat. I doubt that a gun would have done me much good in that situation. But handing my wallet over did the trick. Perhaps I'm just a spineless idealist, but I believe that most conflicts can be solved without violence. If I lose some money in the process, that is a better outcome than getting myself injured or killed, and/or injuring or killing another person.



Obtained illegaly as in stolen from someone's nightstand. With a gun in every other household, it's quite easy for criminals to obtain one.



Crooks also have less use for guns in a widely gun-free country. Someone who plans to break into a house with a potentially armed owner badly needs a gun himself. Moreover, he will be very much inclined to shoot the house owner on sight. A German burglar might as well take his chances and run when he's caught in the act. This admittedly makes it harder for people to defend their property, but they're also less likely to get shot by a scared and desperate criminal. And also less likely to shoot some misguided teenager, I might add.



When it comes to drugs, it clearly doesn't work. People aren't addicted to guns though. Gun prohibition seems to work a whole lot better than drug prohibition. And even if that wasn't the case, the fact that law enforcement is not 100% effective in preventing crime doesn't mean that we should simply give up and decriminalize everything.

I'm against drug prohibition for different reasons though. The government has no business dictating what I may ingest or otherwise inject into my body. It won't harm anyone but myself.

Good point. "Arms" is a very broad term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear arms. And you may not only own them but also bear them according to the Second Amendment. Are US citizens allowed to bear explosives when boarding a plane? Are they allowed to walk the streets with a fully virulent petri dish culture of anthrax bacilli or with a flamethrower? Is it legal to drive around with a canister of nerve gas or a small nuclear warhead on the back of of one's truck?

I somehow can't imagine that. I believe if someone were to exercise his right to bear arms in this way, he would be treated as a terrorist. The government infringes quite a bit on people's alleged right to bear deadly arms that the founding fathers would never have dreamed of. So why allow other modern weaponry? It doesn't make any sense.

Besides, where is the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment? Are gun owners a part of such a militia? Is it well regulated? Is there really any chance that the British red coats will be coming back for seconds anytime soon, and isn't the bloated US military capable of handling this hypothetical threat?

Yeah, there will always be an arbitrary line drawn somewhere and the arguments over where to draw that line will never end because technology advances. Even the most conservative justice on the SC, Scalia, says that the 2cd amendment is not without limits.

You guys are killing me. Apply your reasoning to the 1st amendment and suddenly the only protected forms of speech are those that were available in the 1700s like newspapers and spoken words, not radio, TV, the net, etc; clearly the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted that way and the courts agree.

Also, you can spare me the argument ad absurdum, "arms" refers to small arms like pistols and rifles, anything larger at the time would have been referred to as "ordnance" and is thus not covered under the amendment.

Also, flamethrowers are legal with a lot of paperwork, and yet I've never heard of one being used in a crime. Go figure.

What is really needed is for the people who don't know what they're talking (or typing) about to sit on their hands.

Ever hunted? Let's say I hunt a full spectrum of North American game, and discuss the required weaponry. Deer hunting is pretty common, going to need something like a 7mm, .308, 30-30 rifle for that. Duck? Going to need a 12 gauge shotgun, probably pump. Goose? Pencil me in for a 10 gauge, wouldn't want to risk just wounding them with a 12. Turkey? Different 12 gauge, semi-auto 3 1/2 inch chamber with a tight choke, camo paint and a point sight. Upland game? Better get a 28 gauge over/under to hump over those hills. Elk or moose? Start at a .300 WinMag and go up into the .338s. Prairie dogs or other varmits? Going to need a heavy barreled .22-250. Squirrels and rabbits? A nice .22 pistol or carbine. Bear? I'll take a lever gun in .378 or higher, maybe jump to .45-70 if we're talking grizzly. Should I keep going?

Sports is similar. Every shooter should have a variety of .22 target pistols, but depending on the sport it can get pretty equipment intensive. 3 gun you're talking a semi auto pistol, rifle, and shotgun in reasonably powerful chamberings, cowboy action requires 2 single action revolvers, a lever rifle and a double barreled shotgun, skeet requires a variety of shotguns, IPSC and IDPA each require a variety of pistols depending on the division, bowling pin matches have their own specialized pistols, etc etc.

Am I making my point yet? I and only I know how many guns I need and why, the same as every other gun owner out there. The "you can't own that because someone else might steal it and misuse it" argument is baseless and punishes the law abiding for the possible actions of the lawbreaking.

Hi Dox47,

The closest the Castle Doctrine comes to hunting is maybe the tent. Resorting to guns in situations that might come under under the Castle Doctrine is far removed from hunting and sport. Trying for exoneration under the doctrine isn't helped by the ready availability of the weapon normally useful in other situations, and in fact, the "luck" of having the weapon turns easily into a curse when the strict limits of the doctrine are not satisfied, with being friends in with the "establishment" only extends stretching the benefits of positive hindsight a limited additional amount. Many of "the same as every other gun owner out there" have many inappropriate discharges resulting in a vast panoply of legal & moral problems. Then a jogger in the woods should wear bright orange, and shouldn't be jogging away from any tent that might have been violated from the evidence of the approaching and departing person in a jog.

The defendant being a gun expert probably increases the already stringent requirements of the Castle Doctrine being difficult to satisfy, much like any other expert experiencing an adverse event by chance inclusive in their field of expertise (for example, the anesthesiologist "not" knowing Nitrous Oxide Abuse at a party could be deadly, or a "sure shot" making the deadly shot instead of an only incapacitating shot, readily available to any expert marksman). Even having the foresight to know the Castle Doctrine can be construed as evidence of planning a defense for a near future crime (so Joe-Blow expects anyone to believe that by coincidence he studied the Castle Doctrine a couple weeks before the "innocent" fatal encounter?). Besides, a wide assortment of weapons were available, and the fatal one was chosen by the verified expert? So, the person knew that the weapon was to be needed beforehand? A pea-shooter was available, but an elephant gun was used?

Sure a swimming pool is more dangerous than a gun in the house, frequency wise, but look at who's liable for the trespassing body in the pool, even without a more troublesome bullet hole included.

Was the movie version of possible unfortunate events "Dial C for Castle Doctrine" or "Dial M for Murder"? Hear of Phil Spector in his Castle?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14spector.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03 ... ong-inmate

Tadzio

P.S. It's those dastardly "LIBERAL" justices that regard the divine constitution, & ten original, "Living Documents" morphing into modernity (pseudo-Scalia is the one who restricts his use to a 200+ year old dictionary to maintain original non-morphing scope, with bizarre exceptions (like bankruptcy and copyrights for Mickey Mouse and Norths).

Fully automatic firearms have as little in common with an oldfashioned musket as a canister of nerve gas. Both modern weapons can be used to kill a large amount of people in a very short time, with remarkably little effort and skill. I don't really see how free speech compares to this. A news speaker on TV isn't all that different from a town crier, it's simply a different medium. And news publications don't kill people.

I admit that I can see the need to own a weapon or two if you live out in the sticks, where you might be faced by a grizzly when you open the door. But I don't see why someone who lives in a metropolitan area should be allowed to own a collection of handguns, assault rifles, grenades and whatnot.

Just out of interest, are you a licensed hunter or forester? Or can anybody in the USA walk into the woods and start shooting wildlife left and right?

Hi Raptor,

YOUR:

DOESN'T FOLLOW FROM YOUR:



This isn't the right wing versus the left wing. It's more about the brains between the wings and just behind the beak. The famous "Polly parrots the command for a cracker, but Polly has no desire for a cracker" scenario.

Anyways, the Castle Doctrine strangely disappears, at least in available previews, in an interesting book also addressing the previous subject of self-cannibalization in your ring being illegal (though the Queen almost pardons), between editions: "CRIMINAL LAW" by Joel Samaha, (2007 versus 2010 editions).

"Castle Doctrine" (2007) pages 151-152, "eating people" pages 158-159, and plenty of "protecting home & property" between:

U.S. v. Peterson, 483 F2d 1222 (2nd Cir. 1973):
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... ed+role%22

"Choice of Evils" in eating (The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)) :
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +overboard

Tadzio

P.S. Are the links successful wherever?

Really? Two mechanical devices that share the same basic structure, design and mechanism bear only as much resemblance to each other as they do to an engineered organophosphate chemical compound? Well I'm no chemist, but I am a gunsmith, and last I checked I can build a musket or a machinegun pretty readily with machine tools, but organic chemistry is a whole different field requiring an entirely different set of tools and skills.
Now I do have a book on my shelf by one Uncle Fester claiming to contain formulas for most of the known nerve toxins, but I certainly wouldn't try and synthesize them, though the Japanese proved it is possible in the civilian sector.



That you can't see the difference tells me a lot about your level of understanding. Gas, explosives, large scale weapons; all of these are indiscriminate weapons of no use for self defense. You couldn't protect yourself with a hand grenade, though it would be handy on the offense, but you certainly can with all manner of firearms. They're generally precise weapons, at least so long as you stay within the small arms category that I'm speaking of.



Doesn't matter, you don't get to interpret the Constitution one way for one amendment and another way for a different one. If you say "the second amendment was only meant to apply to arms current in 1776", they you have to also say "the first amendment only applies to communications media existing in 1776"; it's called consistency. Personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Firearms have always worked on the principle of exploding gases expanding and pushing a solid pellet down through a barrel at high speed. The only differences have been in explosive power. Modern bullets go faster through rifled barrels.

During the war of 1812 the British used rockets against Ft. Wm. McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. And grenadiers have always used solid containers that shattered when explosives were set off. Things that go Boom have changed only in power and quality, not in the underlying physical principles.

You might have a point with nuclear weapons. There was nothing like them when the Constitution was ordained

ruveyn

I think I see the problem. You don't know a whole lot about American law, American culture, guns etc, and yet want to express opinions on same and be taken seriously. I live here, I live with guns, I've been studying them a long time. You're opinion is falling short on multiple levels here, you're just not qualified in knowledge or experience. Thankfully you're in Europe, so I don't have to worry about you voting.

You have no idea of the expense and paperwork someone has to go through if they want to own a grenade or short rifle or an assault rifle; months of background checks and thousands of dollars, and there just aren't that many of them out there. If you're so concerned, why not tell me how many legally owned machineguns or destructive devices have ever been used in crimes in the US? Last I checked, which was several years ago, I could count the incidents on one hand and have fingers left over. That's not per year, that's ever. Intriguingly, machineguns are used in crime much more often in Europe because the penalty is the same regardless of the gun used, and it's just as easy to get an automatic weapon as a semiautomatic due to the proximity of the Eastern bloc.



You do need a hunting license and a game tag to hunt most big game, the smaller stuff varies by area. Prairie dogs, for example, are considered a pest animal and are mostly shot on private property where no permits are required, while deer and elk will almost always require a tag.

I'm not a hunter personally, I'm a trained gunsmith, target shooter and occasional competitive shooter. If you haven't guessed already, guns are my consuming interest and have been for a long time; there aren't many people who know as much as I do about how they work, how they're designed, the legal aspects and impacts and the history of firearms development.
Put another way, I've had this exact same argument dozens of times on many forums and even more times in person, plus plenty of even more esoteric ones concerning design aspects of firearms and why people misunderstand them.

Obviously the government and courts agree with you about fully automatic weapons having unique qualities. They started placing restrictions on them during the tommy gun era and that has only increased since. Once the government and courts decide there are limits, the nature of the limits will be up for debate. The NRA is fully aware of that, which is why they remain in a perpetual lather.



I guess that depends on how the gangsters of the 20s and 30s aquired their Thompons. They were legal to buy and not regulated until 1934, specifically because gangsters liked them and used them. If legally aquired, I'm pretty sure they used them more than five times. But if you just mean since the layers of regulation and registration were added, well, it sounds like the regulations that have driven civilian fully automatic weapons to extreme rarity might have worked.

I've wavered on this subject for some time, but honestly I really think guns shouldn't be legal anywhere.

I think Jacoby has it right. There's such a thing as a judge and jury, just as with anything that has this much bredth of interpretation there's the 'reasonable person' caveat; ie. would a reasonable person have felt threatened? If the answer to that question is 'no' then they won't go too far with that.