More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your stance on gun proliferation?

I own a gun. I DON'T TRUST MY DAMN NEIGHBOUR!!!
2
2%
I own several guns, I'm a hitman .(shhhh don't tell anyone)
3
4%
Change the constitution. Outlaw guns once and for all!
14
16%
GIMME A FLAMETHROWER!
2
2%
Nukes for everyone!
7
8%
I don't own one right now, but I seek to acquire some soon as I'm planning a massacre.
2
2%
I'm a hippie. WADDUA THINK I MEAN?? *punches you in the face*
0
No votes
I don't like guns. When I kill people I use a dildo.
5
6%
mmmmmmmmmmmmy Glock.
1
1%
Strict gun control is the way to go.
18
21%
If everyone had guns, less violence would be the result.
11
13%
I'm in a gun club, I only shoot for pleasure.
2
2%
I'm in a gun club, I train for home defense.
3
4%
I like bananas.
6
7%
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
4%
Militias is our only hope.
6
7%
 
Total votes: 85
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:02 pm

Ah, sorry, didn't take that as a direct answer. My apologies. Though, it seems you are the only one brave enough to answer. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:14 pm

Xocrates wrote:Let me be perfectly clear here: I do not object to people defending themselves with whatever means available. Although I vastly prefer the "minimum force necessary" approach to the "shoot on sight" approach (which is the part that scared me).


How do you determine the minimum force necessary to stop an intruder in the home? A person who is scared, adrenaline filled, and caught off guard is not in an ideal condition to make either lengthy or complete determinations of force escalation.

Suppose the minimum force necessary is substantial violence. Is the home owner to start with asking trying to wrestle the intruder out, then graduate to clubs, knives, and eventually firearms as each process fails? Is the intruder to calmly respect he homeowner's decision process as they determine the minimum force necessary?

I propose an alternative doctrine: I think that when a homeowner is faced with a forced intruder that rather than being required to find the minimum force necessary to end the danger they instead should be allowed to exercise the most effective means. They are the victim, they have had their home, their safety, and the safety of their family put in jeopardy against their wishes. Their civil liberties are being actively ignored, and their fundamental right to life and liberty imperiled. When choosing whether to defend themselves they shouldn't have to worry if grabbing the club or the knife is appropriate, and whether they might find themselves in jail for being unfairly effective in defending themselves or their children.

As I said, there is an exceptionally effective way for criminals not to get shot by homeowners: don't break into homes. If you choose however to make someone fear for their lives, you shouldn't be surprised if they fight for them.

People like her, like most gun owners, don't sit around waiting for the opportunity to kill people. They aren't salivating to "shoot on sight". They simple want to win if someone else endangers them, and they realize that using too little force means you might not get a second chance.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:27 pm

Learn martial arts, get a tazer, put bars on your windows, get a big frikkin dog, or for that matter take the kids get out the back door and run.

Or, you know, nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


This is not about escalating the response, it's about not having lethal confrontation as the baseline.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:00 pm

Feud wrote:Also, it should be noted that the police in America have no legal obligation to protect either person or property, unless they specifically extend it to a person. Otherwise they would be liable for any crime thus committed.


I find this a bit confusing. Does this mean that if the police witness a crime they don't have an obligation to intervene? Or in this case the police didn't have to respond to the emergency call and could just sit around in their office all night playing cards?[/quote]

Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:that he forced himself into an occupied private residence is justification enough to use a gun.

This straight up scares me.


In Belgium this actually legal (sort of). Long explanation: there are instances when the use of violence is considered legal when used in defense. There are some conditions that need to apply for it to be legal: *It's in response to a violent assault of a person
*the assault against the person is illegal
*the defense has to be immediate
*the defense has to be proportional to the assault and necessary

Another instance in which it is considered legal is when force used against persons trying to break into an inhabited building during nighttime unless there is no reason to believe the breaking in has the intention of hurting people.

I consider this to be theoretically okay conditions. Of course it can get a bit difficult to determine whether the defense is proportional in practice but it's pretty well arranged in my opinion.
Although some people think it should be widened to make the use of violence legal in case of crimes against property as well. Personally I'm not in favor of that. Any other opinions on the matter? Do you think it should be legal to use violence against someone who only has the intention of stealing or destroying property without causing any harm to persons?
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:07 pm

zjoere wrote: Do you think it should be legal to use violence against someone who only has the intention of stealing or destroying property without causing any harm to persons?

No, but determining the persons intentions is the sticky part.

Edit: I will say that if a person has no intention of doing personal harm to another person, but does his act during the night, where intention to do harm is inferred, violence is defense is much more justifiable. That is, breaking in at night means the persons most likely would be home, and probably asleep (thus much more vulnerable), means that you most likely intend to do harm, vs during the day when most people would be out and at work and your actions are much more visible.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:14 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
zjoere wrote: Do you think it should be legal to use violence against someone who only has the intention of stealing or destroying property without causing any harm to persons?

No, but determining the persons intentions is the sticky part.

Edit: I will say that if a person has no intention of doing personal harm to another person, but does his act during the night, where intention to do harm is inferred, violence is defense is much more justifiable. That is, breaking in at night means the persons most likely would be home, and probably asleep (thus much more vulnerable), means that you most likely intend to do harm, vs during the day when most people would be out and at work and your actions are much more visible.


As a civilian you're simply not supposed to intervene before intentions result in actions.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:21 pm

Xocrates wrote:u
Or, you know, nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


This is not about escalating the response, it's about not having lethal confrontation as the baseline.


Heh. :D
In this case, where the intruder was shot multiple times, for whom was the violence lethal? I think you are using an in appropriate term. I'm not advocating lethal violence, almost no one does. Instead, I advocate sufficient force to effectively protect life and stop the threat. Whether that force is lethal may or may not be the case, but is generally a potential side effect. You shoot to stop a threat, not to wound or to kill. Those are outcomes, not goals.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:32 pm

On a side note, I live in a condo that has no 'back door'. I do have a deck off the master, which is at the very back; however, I'd have to jump at least ten feet (2nd floor) after climbing over the railing. My oldest is 8, so I don't think I'd ask any of them to jump that far unless I had no other choice, especially at night and when you have very little time to make a call. Perhaps the lady was in a similar situation.

As for a dog or bars, not enough room for a big enough dog (no yard, etc), and bars are not allowed (home owners association). Martial arts and a tazer may or may not be effective, especially typical woman vs big male intruder + scary protect the kids situation. My wife is strong (keeps fit) but is only 5'2". I'm fat-ish and out of shape (not too bad though) + 5'6" and her and my three kids couldn't even make me budge in tug-o-war recently. Adrenaline might come into play, but odds are, she'd lose if the man put up a fight.

tl;dr, hiding in the closet might have been her only option.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:50 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Question 1: Did the gun 'save' her and/or her kids. If not, what could/should she have done to avoid potential danger without a gun.

Questoin 2: Do you agree with her husband?

Your questions are irrelevant, and have done an excellent job of completely distracting from the point. The argument in favor of stricter gun control is a statistical argument: in the aggregate, we want to protect as many people as possible. Yes, there are people who are protected by having firearms in their houses. The case you cite may even be such a case, though I would make the same argument as above, i.e. the facts simply don't give enough information to come to that conclusion. On the other hand, there are children that get ahold of their parents firearms and accidentally shoot their friends or neighbors. The relevant question is, "How can we ensure that the latter cases are minimized with respect to the former?"

That being said, the gun controls that I have repeatedly suggested would likely not have had a significant impact on the case you cited above. A properly locked gun safe in the closet would not have greatly increased response time, and registration of the firearm and training in its use should not have been overly burdensome. The woman didn't need an automatic weapon to protect herself, so a ban on things like AKs and M16s would not have been a problem. So, please explain to me how the cited home invasion argues against sensible gun control legislation.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:07 pm

xander wrote: So, please explain to me how the cited home invasion argues against sensible gun control legislation.

xander

I wasn't actually arguing for gun control legislation, perhaps I should have made that clear; I simply wanted people's opinion of a real life situation that involved the use of a gun. You'll notice that I did not make any positive or negative comments regarding the story. :wink: (except for the shock at six shots and no death at such a close range)
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:16 pm

Feud wrote:I'm not advocating lethal violence, almost no one does. Instead, I advocate sufficient force to effectively protect life and stop the threat.

But that's the thing, there are better and less dangerous alternatives that are about as effective. And frankly a large part of the reason we don't have more of them is because people much rather use guns.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Perhaps the lady was in a similar situation.

Actually, the "get out the back door" comment was made specifically because I noticed she could :P

But the point was mostly that there are plenty of alternatives. In your case you could even coordinate multiple safety precautions and emergency plans with the neighbors.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:31 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
xander wrote: So, please explain to me how the cited home invasion argues against sensible gun control legislation.

xander

I wasn't actually arguing for gun control legislation, perhaps I should have made that clear; I simply wanted people's opinion of a real life situation that involved the use of a gun. You'll notice that I did not make any positive or negative comments regarding the story. :wink: (except for the shock at six shots and no death at such a close range)

They why were you posting it in a topic devoted to gun control? With respect to the topic of gun control, the story is, as I noted above, irrelevant.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:35 pm

Er. because this is the IV forums... :P

Also, I don't agree that it's completely irrelevant, unless people are just numbers.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:56 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Er. because this is the IV forums... :P

Also, I don't agree that it's completely irrelevant, unless people are just numbers.

You are making another appeal to emotion. Policy should not be driven by emotion. Policy should be driven by data. Data is not the plural of anecdote, and the story you cite is anecdotal (if factual) in nature. In this case, yes, people are numbers.

xander
User avatar
trickser
level5
level5
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: The Senate ; GMT+1
Contact:

Postby trickser » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:52 pm

xander wrote:Policy should not be driven by emotion. Policy should be driven by data. Data is not the plural of anecdote, and the story you cite is anecdotal (if factual) in nature. In this case, yes, people are numbers.
xander

haha, loving it

On a side note, cause I do not wanna get involved here further:
Policy should be driven by ethics and deduction, it's just too much to ask for.

and

Guns suck ass!
Last edited by trickser on Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests