Right to Bear Arms on Docket... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2008, 11:12 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:50 PM
So protecting your person and property doesn't fall under self-defence? A moot point, an argument based on the freedom to own a gun in principle rather than the conditional case of self-protection (which isn't clear) makes more sense.

If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?

Self-defence should be proportionate, if somebody kills another person in self defence I fail to see what difference it makes whether they use a gun or any other tool. And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership, if people need guns to survive then there are probably bigger problems.
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 04:49 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Well they also have stronger freedom of speech protections, take the good with the bad.
The kind of speech that gets me in trouble here is so far of I can't really be bothered. Though I agree there is a legitimate argument for a full protection of freedom of speech, I wouldn't view this being worthy enough for everyone getting armed.

I don't feel so oppressed only because of some little freedom I have not. And this is like most other topics: I don't see the extremes as being necessary.

Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy

I also believe that people who want a gun for self defence, and not understand the gravatis of the situation. Shoot dead an intruder armed with a knife - wow, you're so brave, and now you've taken someones life. It just seems so unbalanced and wrong.
I would be cautious seeing a knife as something not that dangerous. A knife is as dangerous a weapon as a gun.
And in the case of self-defense, if I got attacked by someone with a knive I would not hesitate to shoot should I have a gun.
The danger I see here more is that with nearly everyone having a gun, or the risk of that being much higher, an intruder is more likely to be armed himself and both sides are likely to be more trigger happy.

Giving everyone the right to get the gun of his liking isn't in any way addressing the reasons for crimes being committed, has more or less zero effect on the crime rate and is rather increasing the likelihood of turning a crime into a tragedy.
But guns are neither reason nor solution for the problem of crime.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 09:51 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,866
Local Time: 10:50 PM
i look forward to getting held up at gunpoint as a result of this law.

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-22-2008, 11:42 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If somebody has broken into a house with a knife and the person in the house is at serious risk then harming or killing them should generally fall under self-protection - it shouldn't matter if it is unfair. Would it be fair if you beat them to death with a hammer but wrong if you shoot them with a gun?
Yes, because if you're being robbed in the middle of the night at knife point, amid all that chaos you are going to quickly and efficiently go downstairs to wherever you keep your gun safely locked away from your children, and proceed to aim at the intruder.

This scenario is one of the sillier arguments in favour of gun control.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 09:29 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And again, just to reiterate that self-defence is a bad argument for gun ownership
The point that I was making was that self defence is self defence, that there really isn't a difference between shooting somebody that poses a threat to your life and beating them to death with a blunt object; the reason would be the same as would the end result. It was in response to a post that stated that a gun was an unfair advantage against a hypothetical knife wielding intruder.

Your answer assumes that 1: the owner has a family, 2: that they live in a 2 story house 3: the gun is locked away far away from their bed. Your logistical argument is far too conditional to be a blanket case against guns as self-defence.

And guns for self-defence is a very silly argument for gun control.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 10:29 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

And guns for self-defence is a very silly argument for gun control.
What?

Gun control is a reasonable limitation in a civilized society. But this is really almost an irrelevant point in America, where the better question is - what makes the society that much more prone to gun violence (because gun ownership is not directly linked to gun violence aside from being an obvious prerequisite) with respect to other comparable western democracies.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-22-2008, 10:47 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
This scenario is one of the sillier arguments in favour of gun control.
You said that self-defence was a silly argument in favour of gun control; that is a true statement, was it the intended statement?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 07:37 AM   #28
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 01:50 PM
no my point in self defence is, the aim of it shouldn't be death. Most people shooting a weapon are going to cause big problems cause they arn't aiming for the leg or arm or something, they just wildy shoot at the head.

Of course someone should defend themselves but there is a huge difference from knocking someone else out with a bat or tackling them and tying them up, or smashing them over the head with a glass, then shooting point blank at them. If you accidentally kill someone from them falling and cracking their head after you hit them, thats not your fault, but if you are using a lethal weapon, with really no regard, care of knowledge its all going to end much worse.
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:34 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Your examples of "reasonable" self defence include tackling and knocking out with a bat - they are things that people can't be expected to do (an averaged sized woman against an average sized man for instance). If somebody was threatening me with a knife tackling them would be the last thing on my mind, it would be suicidal. To even get close enough to strike them with a bat would be dangerous.

A proportionate response that ends up killing the agressor is not moral, but it shouldn't be criminal. That is what I take issue with; your implication that the right to protect ones life is trumped by an aggressors right to bodily safety. In cases of genuine self-defence fault should rest on the aggressor, not the victim. That when it comes to the absolute extreme of having your life directly threatened the response must aim to be non-lethal (as opposed to a frantic do as much damage to them if the opportunity arises - which it probably won't - response). If you have a strong moral opposition to violence in self-defense then it is fine for you to live your life accordingly; but to impose that upon other people would be wrong.

It is an argument independent of gun rights but one relevant for the right to protect oneself from harm. It is also so overtly simplistic as it glosses over what constitutes proportionality, if it extends to protection of property, how much somebody could have done being looked at retroactively etc.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 09:00 AM   #30
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:50 PM
One should compare the number of people killed by self defense with a legal gun, to the number of people murdered with a legal gun...

I guarantee you self defense will lose...
BVS is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 09:15 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Good thing that nobody is making the case that self-defence justifies the right to own a gun.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 09:21 AM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Good thing that nobody is making the case that self-defence justifies the right to own a gun.
So then after self defense and defending against the government which are both shot down now... what is the case?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 10:36 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
no my point in self defence is, the aim of it shouldn't be death. Most people shooting a weapon are going to cause big problems cause they arn't aiming for the leg or arm or something, they just wildy shoot at the head.
Shooting in the upper leg is not less dangerous than in the upper body.
In case of self defense you can't demand for everyone to be a sharpshooter who is able to aim at non-lethal points of a body.
And again, a knife is not a less dangerous weapon, don't fool yourself.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 11:19 AM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


And again, a knife is not a less dangerous weapon, don't fool yourself.
I'd rather take my chances outrunning a knife than a bullet anyday...
BVS is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 11:37 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Yes, in case you can run away it is, of course.
But in case you got attacked and cannot run away, it is dangerous to think it's just a knive.
I didn't say it is the same getting attacked by a gun or a knive, but that it is dangerous to view an attacker armed with a knive as being not that dangerous.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 11:39 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So then after self defense and defending against the government which are both shot down now... what is the case?
Hunting?
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 11:49 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 04:50 AM
If you are a hunter you don't need your gun loaded and handy all the time.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 12:46 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:50 PM
People also don't generally hunt with handguns.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-23-2008, 04:04 PM   #39
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:50 AM
^ I do think the much larger numbers of handguns Americans own, compared to citizens of any other country, is an important factor here. I posted some data awhile back on gun ownership (by gun type) vs. homicide rates in various countries. Our enormous rates of gun theft and illegal gun possession likewise need to be factored in--30-40% of firearms in the US are illegally acquired, according to the FBI, and some 500,000 guns are stolen here every year. Unfortunately, more guns on the (legal) market winds up meaning more illegally acquired ones as well; it's simply too easy to steal and/or illegally trade them.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×