posted
That statement's total logic content is zero.
I related factual incidents. No conceivably 'gung-ho' mentality was included, besides the final line in which I suggested that marauding, threatening people, who ALL committed numerous felony acts, got what they deserved in the end.
The opposite argument, used by many who see humans as essentially untrustworthy, maniacal individuals who need to be controlled, relies soley on largely groundless emotional arguments based on isolated tragic incidents, yet those that were preventable through the application of common sense, and do not require wholesale blanket laws. (And I still wonder how stupid you have to be before you fail to realize that having a gun pointed at you is pretty much the universal sign for 'go away.')
WITHOUT the ability to self-defend, it is likely that most of the potential 'victims' above would have been injured or killed by their assailants. I highly doubt, somehow, that I would then hear you complaining about the 'gung-ho' mentality of the criminals, and how they violated the poor homeowners' rights.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
A wounded criminal, being a highly unscrupulous individual in the first place, is almost certainly likely to attempt to remove blame from himself and cast it on the homeowner, likely by filing frivolous lawsuits. There have been several cases like this. I can even recall an incident from around here where a criminal, while attempting to rob a house, slipped and fell on an icy walkway, and SUED the homeowner. Even though the case was eventually thrown out, it cost the hapless owner thousands to defend himself. (The U.S. needs a 'loser pays' law.)
There's a difference between feeling invulnerable and not having to feel afraid. I doubt that ANY of the people in the stories I posted above ever felt invulnerable. I'd bet some of them were very, very afraid, despite the gun. But now there are five less things to be afraid of.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Here, incidentally, is a partial list of people who are ALREADY, by Federal law, PROHIBITED from possessing guns.
Perhaps if our ban-crazy friends would go a little ENFORCEMENT-crazy, we could actualy make a difference.
� Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year �Fugitives from justice �Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance �Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution �Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa �Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces �Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship �Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders �Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Okay, I'm confused. First obviously thinks that guilty people should be shot, and that they deserve what they get. I would also put money on him supporting capital punishment.
Now, let's wander over to another thread. The one where he condems the Catholic Church for never apologising for any mistakes that it has made. The one where he says that it's still ersponsible for teh Crusades and such. His primary argument about how that is different from the wholesale slaughter of native Americans is that the Catholic Chruch hasn't apologised.
Now, suppose one of these criminals was, instead of being shot, just sent to prison. And suppose in prison that he becomes sorry for his actions. Suppose he wants to make it up? Nah, we'll just shoot him when he comes out.
------------------ "Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be." Sol System
posted
(edited remarks) I will leave it at, if I'm going to use a gun on someone, it wont be to wound. I'm not stupid enough to shoot someone, like in the case Tanha mentioned, but if I feel the need to use a gun, it wont be to wound.
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
posted
Liam: It's a worthy argument, except that it's not borne out by the facts.
I do believe in giving someone a second chance. ONCE. So no, I would not be in favor of shooting someone just released from prison, under normal circumstances. But let me tell you something. The crooks, they knew what they were doing when they decided on that lifestyle. Nobody forced them to do what they do. And you seal your fate with your choices.
What, am I the only person who believes that if someone's negative actions towards others have negative consequences on themselves, that isn't simply 'tough for them?' I mean, don't most religions even teach that?
The recidivism rate is roughly 80%. That is, 80% of people incarcerated will CHOOSE to commit crimes again. Most of the remaining 20% are small-time, or 'crime-of-passion' crimes, where being 'scared straight' will cut it. These people are NOT career criminals, such as those described in the instances above.
FYI: I am in favor of capital punishment as a rule, but as it is practiced now I do not support it. I believe the sentencing procedures are unfair towards minorities, and that too many people are sentenced to death on less than absolute evidence.
Why? We all know CP isn't generally a deterrent to crime. However, of all the possible punishments, only CP can guarantee a 0% return rate. THAT ONE PERSON will never hurt anone again. Draconian? Perhaps. Effective? Absolutely.
Is CP 'cruel and unusual', as some say? I say no, not crueler or more unusual than, say, raping an 89-year- old woman or bashing a child's skull in with a hammer.
(this reminds me, did you read my responses in the ethics thread?)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
"Men, by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist..."
-Thomas Jefferson
That about sums it, doesn't it? Those who fear and distrust the people aren't going to want them to have guns. I trust in the fact that a human being is basically good. Who's with me?
And shouldn't minors be on that list, First?
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
Whoa, and Jesus F*cking Christ! That's gotta be the funniest turn about I have ever read! You trust in the nature of people therefore it's ok to have guns? Shouldn't that read you trust in the nature of people therefore you don't see a need for guns?
What a croc.
[This message has been edited by Daryus Aden (edited March 14, 2000).]
posted
In most, if not all, states, you are only justified in using lethal force where:
You believe you are in immediate danger of death or serious injury if you do not act, or
another person will, if you do not act, immediately suffer death or serious injury.
That doesn't sound like "Judge, jury, and executioner" to me. The majority of people are generally responsible and not homicidal maniacs. It's okay for them to own firearms, as I expect they will use and store them in a responsible manner. They will also not go to the mall and engage in a shooting spree.
Addressing the possibility of shooting someone in an extremity (leg, arm, etc.), that is impractical and inherently unsafe. Someone who is in fear of immediate death or serious injury (read: getting the crap beat out of him/her) cannot be expected to take careful aim at a rapidly-moving limb that's between 2-8 inches in width (depending on the position and build of the attacker) with any reasonable hope of hitting that target.
I have fired firearms under varying conditions. Poor lighting can seriously impair your marksmanship. So can excessive adrenalin. It's hard enough to be accurate at the range, when all conditions are excellent. I myself have no difficulty hitting the 10-ring at up to 25 yards, but that's a tiny target, and paper doesn't shoot back. Under combat conditions, I would want to ensure that I hit the target so that the bullet will not continue downrange and strike an innocent person. I have been trained to aim at the center of the target. That way, even if you don't get a bullseye, you will still hit the target.
Modern handguns are inherently more accurate than most humans can take advantage of. Fired from a "remote rest", they can reasonably be expected to put all the bullets in a circle about 3 inches in diameter or smaller. That's without changing the aim point. The barrel vibrates with every shot, the air temperature affects the trajectory and velocity -- there are dozens of variables even before you put that weapon into a human hand. Under combat conditions, the closer you are to your target, the better. There are instances where trained officers exchanged fire with armed opponents and emptied their clips, and no-one was struck by a single bullet! These were otherwise excellent marksmen who were simply wired on adrenalin (getting attacked by armed opponents can do that to you).
That is one of many reasons that officers (and other trained firearms users) are trained to aim at the center of the target (right around the solar plexus on an adult male). It's harder to miss, and the bullet will (usually) stop inside the target. This is not good news for the target, but it is good news for anyone behind him. After all, most guns can fire a slug with lethal force out to a half-mile or better.
If a police officer intentionally aimed anywhere but the center of his target in a combat situation, he would be subject to disciplinary action, especially if he missed his target (or the bullet passed through the target) and struck an innocent bystander. A handgun is a last-resort weapon. When used for defense, it is preferable only to knives and bare hands. It is lethal, and not as inherently accurate as a rifle. It is used at the shortest range (typically 5 meters or less) and has the shortest sight radius (the distance between the rear sight aperature and the sight post). During an attack is not the time for "fancy shooting".
Even if you shoot an opponent in a "non-vital" area, there is no guarantee this will stop the fight. Neither is it guaranteed that the person you shoot will only suffer minor injury. People have been killed (sometimes instantly) by a shot to a non-vital part of the body (elbow, foot, etc.) If you have determined that you must use lethal force, there is no mercy (and quite a bit of foolishness) in attempting to "wing" your opponent. The objective is to stop the violent encounter immediately, not to blow stray rounds into the surrounding countryside, to the hazard of all.
If you think you don't need a gun, don't get one. If you think you might need to use a gun, get training and use (and store) it responsibly. Think about the consequences of leaving it where a child might find it, then DON'T! Think about the consequences of getting into a lethal encounter, then do everything you possibly can to prevent this! A responsible gun owner doesn't eagerly await the moment he can pull out "ol' Bess" and destroy a miscreant. Instead, he carefully ensures he minimizes his chances of ever needing to use his weapon.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. This world's not perfect.
--Baloo
------------------ "Sometimes "dark" is just a way of saying you�ve nothing to add, only a new way to subtract."
posted
I believe that in some states you are considered justified in using lethal force to defend property, (such as, against a home invader, even if he has not displayed a desire to physically harm you) as well.
Jay, if you see 'swagger and bravado' in the words posted here, I'm afraid you're only deluding yourself. The 'swagger and bravado' is prevalent among the people who think they can waltz into someone's home, do whatever they want, and get away unharmed.
Omega: yes, minors should be on that list, except that the list was dealing with adults who would otherwise be legally able to own guns.
Baloo's statements are factual and entirely correct. Nobody WANTS to use their gun. I sure don't. What I WANT is simply to have an effective measure as an option of last resort. People who acquire guns because they WANT to use them on someone are dangerous. Probably, they're already criminals, and THEY make up most of the .0009% of guns actually used to commit crimes. (there may be one more '0' in there, I'm not sure)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2000).]
posted
Apart from guns used for self-defense, there is also the sporting aspect. None of my guns were purchased for defensive purposes. Rather, I like to go to the range and punch holes in paper, or hunt the "deadly" can-nis aluminatus. I like to go down to the gunshop and discuss the history of firearms with the other patrons, or talk about how this or that mechanically interesting firearm operates with the gunsmith. I especially enjoy shooting black powder firearms, such as caplock revolvers and muzzle-loading rifles.
Just as the cyclist enjoys the sport of cycling and the cameraderie of cyclists, the drag racer the sport of drag racing and other racers, and Trek enthusiasts enjoy Star Trek (in its various forms) and other trekkers (in their various forms ), so the shooter is interested in firearms, shooting, and other enthusiasts.
I myself am mostly interested in the mechanical and historical aspect of firearms. Unlike automobiles, computers, and other technological devices, a well-made firearm can safely endure hundreds of years of regular use with minimal care. Just as with automobiles and aircraft, their safe use for sporting purposes requires one to exercise good judgement and the observation of basic safety rules.
I object to further expansion of gun control laws. This is not because I don't care about the safety of others. I do. It is not because I am eager to see a gun in every home. I am not. It is not because I am eager to possess an "arsenal" of guns to defend my home from criminals or "that nasty ol' gummint". It is because there are already laws in force which, were they enforced, would prevent a great deal of violent crime. Those who would not be deterred by the law would suffer longer sentences, and thus be removed as a danger to society for longer periods of time.
I am personally affronted by the theory that disarming me will somehow keep some criminal from robbing a 7-11 somewhere. What I do with firearms is not criminal. Taking my personal property will not reduce crime.
--Baloo
------------------ "Sometimes "dark" is just a way of saying you�ve nothing to add, only a new way to subtract."
posted
I would like to say that not all people who own guns think that they are invincible. In my household (I still live with my parents) there are a number of guns. I also have a rather large knife and a nightstick by my bed. Those are there in case I cannot make it to a gun. No one in my house feels that they are invincible simply because we have guns. I was always taught to respect guns, don't play with them, and only point them if you are going to pull the trigger. There is one reason that we have guns in my household. My dad is a police officer and has been for 23 years. And because of this fact I have had my life threatend by people who have the ability and the will. I don't worry about someone breaking in to rob my house. I have to worry about them coming in to personally get at me. So those of you who don't believe people should own guns have someone threating your life and see what makes you sleep better and night.
------------------ Death before Dishonor! However Dishonor has quite a disputed defintion.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
