Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 4730 Location: Southeast U.S.A.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:07 am Post subject:
Dox47 wrote:
Can anyone here make sense of Tadzio's post? I think he was trying to insult me in some way, but it could also have just been a nonsensical non sequitur; it's hard to tell with him.
*cues attack on my reading comprehension*
Tadzio likes to communicate in some kind of abstract form which, in effect, is nonsensical.
Yes, it probably was an insult.
Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 4730 Location: Southeast U.S.A.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:46 am Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
If a professional police force has difficulty determining "threat" and it's extent, I don't see how hobbyists are going to do it well.
Not all police are professional and not all “hobbyists” are stupid. Believe it or not, you actually have to justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You alter your public lifestyle to accommodate carrying a firearm in public for this very reason (e.g. avoid trouble spots, avoid confrontation, practice situational awareness, etc….).
Quote:
I also don't trust gun owners to secure their weapons and think they contribute to the violent crime problem when they are lazy about it. Many seem to believe that criminals are armed by magical gun factories.
If they are in my locked house, locked vehicle, or even on my person then they are secure. I keep most of mine in a safe but that is primarily to protect my investments. Breaking and entering to steal from someone is a crime in itself. I don’t leave milk and cookies out for burglars, either.
There are several channels for procuring firearms legally and illegally but it’s the act, not the tools used, that should be fought.
Quote:
Guns arent VCRs, it requires some responsibility.
VCR? I almost forgot what one of those is. We’re well into the DVD and Blu-ray era now.
Quote:
As an aside, there is a generation or three that cannot throw or take a punch. They werent raised that way. So I think you have some men who are afraid of fighting, afraid of losing and would rather kill other people than lose a fight, if given the chance. Army training had to be adjusted because we don't have that scrapper culture any more. Was it a better world when men would just have a punch up and be done? Beats me. But there is a change.
For the most part you can thank overprotective and negligent parenting for that.
Quote:
Once upon a time, "I had to kill him, he was going to punch me", would have been one sorry defense for a man.
It still is a sorry defense, believe it or not.
There are guys and gals sitting in prison because they didn’t have the right mindset about their self-defense and capped someone for less than a good reason. As I stated above, you still have to legally justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You must provide believable rationale that you were in fear of life and limb before that pistol comes out of the holster. Even if that is successful there is still the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death or injury for violating their rights.
Choosing to go armed is a burden with several considerations to take into account. My state is awash in concealed weapon permit holders and our castle doctrine applies anywhere we are yet the kind of shootings you seem to be concerned with are quite rare.
Some may handle it well, others will not. I just don't see a need to encourage the marginal cases.
Quote:
[6.25] to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
[6.27] (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Even setting aside what the police or juries will buy, the language can be read by some to imply that they are essentially deputized to shoot when they "believe" they see a forcible felony happening anywhere, or when they "believe" they are at risk of substantial harm. The ultimate legal outcome is less important than the encouragement to participate in gunplay. The language will inevitably encourage cowboys because not everyone is bright.
Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 4730 Location: Southeast U.S.A.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:30 pm Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
Some may handle it well, others will not. I just don't see a need to encourage the marginal cases.
Quote:
[6.25] to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
[6.27] (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Even setting aside what the police or juries will buy, the language can be read by some to imply that they are essentially deputized to shoot when they "believe" they see a forcible felony happening anywhere, or when they "believe" they are at risk of substantial harm. The ultimate legal outcome is less important than the encouragement to participate in gunplay. The language will inevitably encourage cowboys because not everyone is bright.
Yes, there are some cases of wrongful shootings by CCW holders as I stated but very few compared to the amount of CCW holders there are. If this were not the case then we’d be knee deep in blood.
There are no prefect solutions. There are human predators in our society and armed citizens have made the hunting grounds for theses predators more dangerous than they would be otherwise.
The police are tasked with maintaining general lawful order in society and investigate crimes, not to protect each individual.
Evidence shows that the balance is well in favor of legally armed citizens.
And don’t be fooled into thinking that those gun free zones are safe zones. Looking at it through the eyes of a predator all they are only shooting galleries.
Furthermore, being armed is not about paranoia it’s about being aware and better prepared.
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 Posts: 3652 Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:30 pm Post subject:
Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
If a professional police force has difficulty determining "threat" and it's extent, I don't see how hobbyists are going to do it well.
Not all police are professional and not all “hobbyists” are stupid. Believe it or not, you actually have to justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You alter your public lifestyle to accommodate carrying a firearm in public for this very reason (e.g. avoid trouble spots, avoid confrontation, practice situational awareness, etc….).
Quote:
I also don't trust gun owners to secure their weapons and think they contribute to the violent crime problem when they are lazy about it. Many seem to believe that criminals are armed by magical gun factories.
If they are in my locked house, locked vehicle, or even on my person then they are secure. I keep most of mine in a safe but that is primarily to protect my investments. Breaking and entering to steal from someone is a crime in itself. I don’t leave milk and cookies out for burglars, either.
There are several channels for procuring firearms legally and illegally but it’s the act, not the tools used, that should be fought.
Quote:
Guns arent VCRs, it requires some responsibility.
VCR? I almost forgot what one of those is. We’re well into the DVD and Blu-ray era now.
Quote:
As an aside, there is a generation or three that cannot throw or take a punch. They werent raised that way. So I think you have some men who are afraid of fighting, afraid of losing and would rather kill other people than lose a fight, if given the chance. Army training had to be adjusted because we don't have that scrapper culture any more. Was it a better world when men would just have a punch up and be done? Beats me. But there is a change.
For the most part you can thank overprotective and negligent parenting for that.
Quote:
Once upon a time, "I had to kill him, he was going to punch me", would have been one sorry defense for a man.
It still is a sorry defense, believe it or not.
There are guys and gals sitting in prison because they didn’t have the right mindset about their self-defense and capped someone for less than a good reason. As I stated above, you still have to legally justify your actions in a defensive shooting. You must provide believable rationale that you were in fear of life and limb before that pistol comes out of the holster. Even if that is successful there is still the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death or injury for violating their rights.
Choosing to go armed is a burden with several considerations to take into account. My state is awash in concealed weapon permit holders and our castle doctrine applies anywhere we are yet the kind of shootings you seem to be concerned with are quite rare.
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 Posts: 3652 Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: Well Armed Bursting Douche Bags
Tadzio wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Yeah, for anyone who still has doubts about the solidity of the definition, good luck trying to convince the court that a woman you just shot after you had sex with her was an "imminent threat" commencing the course of conduct of putting her clothes back on. The "imminent threat" definition also makes it clear that wearing baggy pants doesn't constitute an imminent threat unless that person reaches for a weapon concealed in it.
Hi AceOfSpades,
In your sentence "The 'imminent threat' definition also makes it clear that wearing baggy pants doesn't constitute an imminent threat unless that person reaches for a weapon concealed in it," how do you determine that the baggy pants are not used to accommodate something similar to your concerns with douche bags required for over-reaction to perceived imminent threats, especially with the top reason for in house guns is listed as for "protection", despite that others consider other family members as opportunities of dangers hunting for any fatal error?
Many police commissions/court cases hold the display of behaviours characteristic of many episodes of ASD phenomena constitute "imminent threat" justifying the use of deadly force. Are you in the correct bandwidth of subject concerns?
Tadzio
Uhhh.. what? This rambling is so vague and lacking in context I don't even know where to start. Accommodate what? Similar to my concerns about what?
Some may handle it well, others will not. I just don't see a need to encourage the marginal cases.
Quote:
[6.25] to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
[6.27] (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Even setting aside what the police or juries will buy, the language can be read by some to imply that they are essentially deputized to shoot when they "believe" they see a forcible felony happening anywhere, or when they "believe" they are at risk of substantial harm. The ultimate legal outcome is less important than the encouragement to participate in gunplay. The language will inevitably encourage cowboys because not everyone is bright.
Yes, there are some cases of wrongful shootings by CCW holders as I stated but very few compared to the amount of CCW holders there are. If this were not the case then we’d be knee deep in blood.
There are no prefect solutions. There are human predators in our society and armed citizens have made the hunting grounds for theses predators more dangerous than they would be otherwise.
The police are tasked with maintaining general lawful order in society and investigate crimes, not to protect each individual.
Evidence shows that the balance is well in favor of legally armed citizens.
And don’t be fooled into thinking that those gun free zones are safe zones. Looking at it through the eyes of a predator all they are only shooting galleries.
Furthermore, being armed is not about paranoia it’s about being aware and better prepared.
The question is why do we need to make it easier for non-professionals to justify discharging a firearm? Why remove the requirement to remove yourself from danger if possible? It's the same with this effort to allow guns in bars. We don't let people drink and drive but they can go into a bar with a gun? To what purpose are they entering a bar if not to drink? How is that safe?
If it were really about risk mitigation in an unsafe world then their time is better spent making sure they have proper airbag protection and eating a healthy diet. The chances of being involved in catching a bank robber or driving off burglars is pretty remote for most Americans. . But car accidents and heart disease are very likely to kill you. It's a hobby first for most of them, not a realistic plan for life extension. In fact if they have poor mental health or lax gun safety training, it's dangerous. But that's a separate issue.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?
I hope this law goes through. One of the founding principles of the USA is the right to possess a firearm. In regards to the pro-gun control crowd: I'm sure the average person can commit murder with their bare hands as well as everyday household items (eg. kitchen knives, laundry detergent, pills/meds) should we mandate that all of those things be banned and people have their hands and feet cut off at birth? I think not. Unlike martial arts and swords/knives, guns do not require you to train for several months to a few years in order to become proficient enough to use them with accuracy, making them easy to use. You can also defend yourself from a distance with a firearm, and getting up close is probably something you want to avoid when in immediate danger of life or limb. They are also easy to conceal (with the exception of large ones like hunting rifles). That, and I'm sure their very presence is enough to send the message to someone who is looking to harm you that you're not one to mess with.
In short: It is as useful to take away the God-given rights of the people as it is to teach an ass to speak English. _________________ "I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
Last edited by LiberalJustice on Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jan 29, 2008 Posts: 5344 Location: Seattle Area
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
If a professional police force has difficulty determining "threat" and it's extent, I don't see how hobbyists are going to do it well.
The stats don't bear you out, the police shoot the wrong people or shoot under questionable circumstances far more often than CCW holders, both in absolute and proportionate numbers. Could be because a citizen has a lot more potential consequences to pulling the trigger than a cop does, even if the cop was completely wrong.
simon_says wrote:
I also don't trust gun owners to secure their weapons and think they contribute to the violent crime problem when they are lazy about it. Many seem to believe that criminals are armed by magical gun factories. Guns arent VCRs, it requires some responsibility.
I remember when I got my first couple of guns and couldn't afford a safe, I bolted holsters in unlikely places around the house (like under the sink in the bathroom) and stashed my guns in such a way that only the most thorough of burglars was likely to find one. Safe storage isn't a cut and dried issue, as a gun that's secured isn't handy when you need it while a gun that's handy may be vulnerable to theft. At my current house, the safe is downstairs (moving 600 lbs up a flight of stairs wasn't in the offing) while the bedroom is upstairs, so I keep my carry guns on the nightstand when I'm home and on my person when I'm out. Works for me, but might violate some arbitrary safe storage law.
simon_says wrote:
As an aside, there is a generation or three that cannot throw or take a punch. They werent raised that way. So I think you have some men who are afraid of fighting, afraid of losing and would rather kill other people than lose a fight, if given the chance. Army training had to be adjusted because we don't have that scrapper culture any more. Was it a better world when men would just have a punch up and be done? Beats me. But there is a change.
Been watching Friday?
simon_says wrote:
Once upon a time, "I had to kill him, he was going to punch me", would have been one sorry defense for a man.
It still is; you'd go to jail for sure behind that "defense". To even draw a gun you have to be facing an imminent lethal threat or threat of gross bodily harm; life limb or eyesight I've heard is described. You can't draw on someone over a fistfight, you can't draw over harsh words, you can't draw over a menacing appearance, you need imminent threat of a serious nature. Even throwing a punch at someone isn't enough either, there needs to be a weapon present, grossly superior physical strength (usually invoked in cases involving women, the elderly or the disabled), or a multiple assailant situation before you're allowed to even draw, let alone shoot. The vast, vast, majority of defensive gun usage never gets past the draw stage, as most people don't want to get shot and will flee when a gun enters the equation. It tends to upset the criminal calculus, as after all the point of much crime is to acquire things without the effort normally required, and a gunshot wound is more risk than most criminals are prepared to accept. _________________ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken
Joined: Jan 29, 2008 Posts: 5344 Location: Seattle Area
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
The question is why do we need to make it easier for non-professionals to justify discharging a firearm? Why remove the requirement to remove yourself from danger if possible?
It's about putting the rights of the citizen above the rights of the criminal. If I or someone around me is being attacked, I should be able to act in the most expedient manner possible to prevent harm without being legally second guessed afterwards because I didn't try to retreat first or follow some other arbitrary law during a highly stressful situation.
simon_says wrote:
It's the same with this effort to allow guns in bars. We don't let people drink and drive but they can go into a bar with a gun? To what purpose are they entering a bar if not to drink? How is that safe?
Correction: we do allow people to drink and drive, we don't allow people to drive drunk. If I'm carrying as part of my day to day and wish to go to a bar under the current law, I have to leave my gun in the car even if I don't plan on drinking, which is a situation where the gun is much more likely to be stolen than normal. The bar itself might also be located in a sketchy area, and bar parking lots are hardly bastions of safety. There are plenty of states that already allow guns in bars, and yet they're not looking at huge rashes of bar shootings; imagine that.
simon_says wrote:
If it were really about risk mitigation in an unsafe world then their time is better spent making sure they have proper airbag protection and eating a healthy diet. The chances of being involved in catching a bank robber or driving off burglars is pretty remote for most Americans. . But car accidents and heart disease are very likely to kill you. It's a hobby first for most of them, not a realistic plan for life extension. In fact if they have poor mental health or lax gun safety training, it's dangerous. But that's a separate issue.
If saving lives were your primary concern, you'd be devoting your time and energy to drug law reform. Why mess around with guns at all when gun control is a high risk low reward (at best) proposition that costs massive amounts of political capitol and alienates large chunks of the population when there are much lower hanging fruit? _________________ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken
Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 4730 Location: Southeast U.S.A.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject:
simon_says wrote:
Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Some may handle it well, others will not. I just don't see a need to encourage the marginal cases.
Quote:
[6.25] to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
[6.27] (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Even setting aside what the police or juries will buy, the language can be read by some to imply that they are essentially deputized to shoot when they "believe" they see a forcible felony happening anywhere, or when they "believe" they are at risk of substantial harm. The ultimate legal outcome is less important than the encouragement to participate in gunplay. The language will inevitably encourage cowboys because not everyone is bright.
Yes, there are some cases of wrongful shootings by CCW holders as I stated but very few compared to the amount of CCW holders there are. If this were not the case then we’d be knee deep in blood.
There are no prefect solutions. There are human predators in our society and armed citizens have made the hunting grounds for theses predators more dangerous than they would be otherwise.
The police are tasked with maintaining general lawful order in society and investigate crimes, not to protect each individual.
Evidence shows that the balance is well in favor of legally armed citizens.
And don’t be fooled into thinking that those gun free zones are safe zones. Looking at it through the eyes of a predator all they are only shooting galleries.
Furthermore, being armed is not about paranoia it’s about being aware and better prepared.
The question is why do we need to make it easier for non-professionals to justify discharging a firearm? Why remove the requirement to remove yourself from danger if possible? It's the same with this effort to allow guns in bars. We don't let people drink and drive but they can go into a bar with a gun? To what purpose are they entering a bar if not to drink? How is that safe?
If it were really about risk mitigation in an unsafe world then their time is better spent making sure they have proper airbag protection and eating a healthy diet. The chances of being involved in catching a bank robber or driving off burglars is pretty remote for most Americans. . But car accidents and heart disease are very likely to kill you. It's a hobby first for most of them, not a realistic plan for life extension. In fact if they have poor mental health or lax gun safety training, it's dangerous. But that's a separate issue.
Quote:
The question is why do we need to make it easier for non-professionals to justify discharging a firearm? Why remove the requirement to remove yourself from danger if possible? It's the same with this effort to allow guns in bars. We don't let people drink and drive but they can go into a bar with a gun? To what purpose are they entering a bar if not to drink? How is that safe?
Maybe that's what the law abiding citizens want because it has worked elsewhere. Removing oneself from danger is an on-the-spot call, not something that can be determined beforehand by a law. Retreating or turning your back on a threat isn't always advisable or even possible for the obvious reasons. The guns in bars thing varies from state to state and, like Dox47 said, it apparently isn't the issue you make it out to be.
Quote:
If it were really about risk mitigation in an unsafe world then their time is better spent making sure they have proper airbag protection and eating a healthy diet. The chances of being involved in catching a bank robber or driving off burglars is pretty remote for most Americans. . But car accidents and heart disease are very likely to kill you. It's a hobby first for most of them, not a realistic plan for life extension. In fact if they have poor mental health or lax gun safety training, it's dangerous. But that's a separate issue.
Vehicle safety and taking care of you're heath are good practices but that doesn't cover everything. House fires are kind of rare as well but that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for one anyway.
It's not about catching bank robbers it's about preservation of life and limb against an aggressor. Obtaining a CCW is not the same as being deputized by any means.
If your argument had any merit we'd be seeing states dropping carry permit issuance and the castle doctrine, not more states adopting them.
In the five years I've been registered on WP there has NEVER been a thread like this where your side has come up with anything more than repeating the "gunz-r-bad" mantra phrased differently.
Your not about protecting anyone, your all about enabling predators.
Guns also allow traditional victim classes, you know, women, the elderly, the disabled, etc to defend themselves from predatory individuals, something not possible with weapons of the past that required strength and agility to wield. They're egalitarian, being relatively inexpensive, easy to use, convenient to carry on your person, and available. The alternative is far more elitist; the strong preying on the weak, or only those physically or financially able possessing protection. Remember, the police don't prevent crimes, they punish the perpetrators (sometimes) after the fact; cold comfort to the victim of a violent attack.
But things would be so much better if we were still hacking away at each other with sharp/blunt objects cause guns are bad, right?
We have a very strict weapons law in Germany. It's almost impossible for civilians to legally buy a gun. And yet I don't see people attacking each other with knifes or blunt objects. Initiating close combat takes a certain amount of courage (and, as heavenlyabyss has pointed out, it also takes a certain degree of sociopathy to stab someone with a knife). Pulling a trigger is much easier.
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.
But the main argument against guns is, in my opinion, the way in which law enforcement officers treat civilians. In a country where civilians might be armed, the police does not only employ a far greater amount of preemptive force, police work is also much less attractive for sensible, peaceable and level-headed people. Instead, law enforcement jobs are more likely to attract hardcases and control freaks with a penchant for violence. The news are filled with cases of police brutality in the USA.
I've also seen a video (see below) where a traffic cop threatens to shoot a man in the head after he informs the officer that he's legally carrying a gun. This shows that even a situation as harmless as a cop issuing a speeding ticket is likely to escalate in a bloodbath if guns are involved. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I have to be afraid of the police simply because they have a reason to be afraid of civilians.
Last edited by CrazyCatLord on Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
About the only places where the streets even come close to running red with blood are the states and cities that forbid it's citizens from defending themselves. Go figure..............
It's exactly the other way around in Germany. We had a small number of school shootings, all of which involved legal gun ownership. In one case, the teenage shooter was a member of a shooting club, one of the last legal loopholes in our weapons law. In another case, the teenager's father was a sport shooter and one of the few civilians who can legally own guns. All of those of those crimes could have been prevented by stricter regulations. On the other side, I haven't heard of a single case where a gun in the hands of a civilian has prevented a crime.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: Leslie Nielsen Wonders Why Libraries Have Books
Raptor wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Can anyone here make sense of Tadzio's post? I think he was trying to insult me in some way, but it could also have just been a nonsensical non sequitur; it's hard to tell with him.
*cues attack on my reading comprehension*
Tadzio likes to communicate in some kind of abstract form which, in effect, is nonsensical.
Yes, it probably was an insult.
Hi Raptor,
What you call "some kind of abstract form" is called referencing sources of information with citations to the source of the information, here, a thing called a book. I am tempted to demean the fine art of satire by comparing your thread responses to scenes/dialogue from many of Leslie Nielsen's movies: "We have to get these people to a hospital," "A Hospital!!!, What is it???", "It's a big building with many beds in it, but that's not important right now." "Surely you're joking!," "I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."
It is unfortunate that you also construe so many things you fail to understand as necessitating your interpretation of the existence of a present insult , as so many faulty interpretations of "imminent danger" start with such a singular presumptive error in judgement.
