Oh the Irony

[blackshoe]

Just to be clear, our current legal structure allows for both criminal and civil suits.

The system that you describe is in effect right now.

 

The issue isn't that liberals "will never stand for this", rather the real problem is how do you plan to collect any significant amount of money from someone who (best case scenario) is currently serving 15-20 for assault with a deadly weapon?

 

The only time that you see these laws used is in cases like the civil suits against OJ

The defendant needs to have very deep pockets to justify the efforts required to collect.

I am aware of the current system. I'm suggesting a different system. And you're wrong, the best case scenario is that the perpetrator of the ADW is dead, because his intended victim killed him.

 

That a defendant (or for that matter anyone using the legal system) needs deep pockets just shows that something is seriously wrong with the system.

[ArtK78]

You got us! Our dastardly plan to take over the US by force has been thwarted by the Second Amendment!

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

[TimG]

From what I have experienced, the USA is simply much more violent than any of the other economically developed countries (excluding Israel, but there violence has a different background).

The statistics I have seen recently show that the UK has the highest violent crime rate (amongst economically developed countries).

[hrothgar]

I am aware of the current system. I'm suggesting a different system. And you're wrong, the best case scenario is that the perpetrator of the ADW is dead, because his intended victim killed him.

 

 

Fine. Let's work from your best case scenario.

 

Joe Perpetrator robs you at gun point.

You're able to get off a round and righteously kill the SOB.

Sadly, Joe fires as well, leaving you crippled for life.

Who are you collecting money from???

 

FWIW, I understand the point that you were trying to make.

In your idyllic paradise, you were able to cap the bastard without any negative impact to yourself at all.

 

I just think its kind of sad that your best case scenario is one where you get to kill someone, rather than one where you never got robbed in the first place.

[Trinidad]

I am aware of the current system. I'm suggesting a different system. And you're wrong, the best case scenario is that the perpetrator of the ADW is dead, because his intended victim killed him.

If you hold such a view, you would not get a gun permit in The Netherlands...

 

Neither is it helping the security of a free state.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

That a defendant (or for that matter anyone using the legal system) needs deep pockets just shows that something is seriously wrong with the system.

 

Life would be so much better, if only we all lived in Forbes America

 

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2917637657/

[mikeh]

Fine. Let's work from your best case scenario.

 

Joe Perpetrator robs you at gun point.

You're able to get off a round and righteously kill the SOB.

Sadly, Joe fires as well, leaving you crippled for life.

Who are you collecting money from???

 

FWIW, I understand the point that you were trying to make.

In your idyllic paradise, you were able to cap the bastard without any negative impact to yourself at all.

 

I just think its kind of sad that your best case scenario is one where you get to kill someone, rather than one where you never got robbed in the first place.

Reminds me of a story that a very well-known bridge professional told a long time ago. I won't name names.

 

He described, with apparent glee, that a Chicago area businessman had the good luck to arrive at work one day and find that an inept burglar had broken in and had got stuck somehow...I gather he was able to get into a room through a window but was unable to get back out. The owner was armed, and the burglar tried to flee once the door was open. The owner shot and killed him and avoided prosecution because he was defending his property. The pro's view was that the owner was lucky, not because he wasn't prosecuted, but because he'd been given, on arrival at his business, the opportunity for a 'free kill' and had been 'smart' enough to take advantage of it.

 

The notion of being able to kill people who act against you may appeal to some: frankly I think of such an attitude as sick.

 

It seems to me that this idyllic paradise of blackshoe is based not only on a libertarian fantasy but also on the notion, popularized in many action movies, that when bad guys shoot, they generally miss the star(s) of the show...the only 'good guys' who get killed are minor players....while the good guys hit the target with astounding frequency. Since we tend to see ourselves as the stars of our own video, we tend to assume that we'll survive even if others don't. So of course it makes perfect sense for us to be armed: then, when faced with an armed assailant, we'd do what the action heroes do...we'd pull our gun, dodge the bullets fired by the bad guy, and shoot him dead. Our bullets would never miss, never pass through our target and hit someone else, and so on.

 

In real life we get stories such as the one out of NY some years ago where several officers shot a man at close range, firing in excess of 40 times and hitting him maybe 5 or 6 times. Or the stories we get here in B.C., where gang-related shootouts have killed innocent bystanders while only wounding or even missing the intended targets.

 

Which is, again, why in my opinion the pro-gun proponents have few, if any, arguments based in reality and instead construct these edifices of idealized people and simplified situations in which everything is black or white, with few shades of grey and no moral ambivalences or complications. Reality is messy, it is complicated and it ignores our wishes....and it has a habit of biting back at those who pay it no heed. Unfortunately, when it bites back it doesn't care who gets hurt.

[blackshoe]

Fine. Let's work from your best case scenario.

 

Joe Perpetrator robs you at gun point.

You're able to get off a round and righteously kill the SOB.

Sadly, Joe fires as well, leaving you crippled for life.

Who are you collecting money from???

 

FWIW, I understand the point that you were trying to make.

In your idyllic paradise, you were able to cap the bastard without any negative impact to yourself at all.

 

I just think its kind of sad that your best case scenario is one where you get to kill someone, rather than one where you never got robbed in the first place.

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place".

 

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

[dwar0123]

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

This painting is a self portrait and your agenda is terrifying.

[mikeh]

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place".

 

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

I am unaware of the statistics, maybe you know them better than I do.

 

However, the issues of gun violence go far beyond the issue of a criminal deciding to hold somebody up on the street, in order to rob him or her.

 

Most domestic violence cases that end in gunshots arise during or because of altercations or longer-terms problems in which resentment, bitterness, anger, jealousy, hatred, depression, substance abuse, divorce or separation, loss of access to children, etc play a role.

 

The killing, which is often associated with suicide but is often also accompanied by killing other family members and friends, is not prevented by knowing that the victim has access to a weapon. It is not usually an act that seems like a logical, reasoned response to a situation, although there is often an internal logic to the killer's actions. I have a little understanding of this topic since I was involved, as counsel, in an extensive inquiry into a brutal murder-suicide in which the killer killed himself, his wife, his child, and her grandparents. I heard and read from a lot of experts on this type of killing spree.

 

Many shootings are gang-related, with each side fully understanding the other guys routinely have access to weapons, and that indeed one incident is likely to lead to retaliation in kind, so clearly the availability of guns to the other side is a non-issue. You might argue that so what: let the gang-bangers kill themselves, but the problem is that innocents get caught in the cross-fire.

 

When previously law-abiding citizens get to carry weapons, and tempers flare, such people tend to lose the ability to act rationally. Road-rage can lead to killing. Arguments about a guy seen to be flirting with another guy's girlfriend in a bar can lead to punches and escalate to the pulling of a gun. People feel humiliated by others, and they pull a gun. People resent being fired or passed over for promotion, so they pull a gun. People feel threatened so they pull a gun. People feel safe and powerful because they have a gun so they push a little harder and more aggressively and thus create confrontations that would otherwise have been avoided. Recent studies showing increased gunshot killings in 'stand your ground' states seem to suggest just that.

 

If the only serious risk of intentional gun violence was the non-intoxicated, clear-thinking criminal deciding whether to hold up someone who might be armed, then your logic makes sense. Since it isn't, your logic doesn't. Instead, it represents the typical evasions of reality purveyed by libertarians. You concoct an imaginary reality in which your philosophy works, and you ignore anything that doesn't fit. Which means ignoring HUGE areas of reality. Well, Fox News does very well with that approach to news, so I can understand its attraction to certain kinds of thinkers.

[mike777]

Since reality is no one here is suggesting taking away guns and the number of legal guns are increasing rapidly, lets start from that point in stopping gun violence.

 

Gun violence is down for some reason, lets find out why and perhaps do more of whatever works.

[nige1]

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place". You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

This seems to encourage arms-escalation. From a selfish view-point, however, blackshoe's kind of argument is hard to counter. e.g.

If you kill me you won't be executed

If you kill me you may suffer rendition and anything left will be executed

[hrothgar]

Since reality is no one here is suggesting taking away guns and the number of legal guns are increasing rapidly, lets start from that point in stopping gun violence.

 

Gun violence is down for some reason, lets find out why and perhaps do more of whatever works.

 

There are a number of theories about why gun violence is down.

Two of the most prominent are the aging population and banning lead as a fuel additive.

 

With this said and done, no one here has suggested completely banning guns, however, and number of us - myself included - favor much stricter limits on what can legal by carried. I'd go so far as to ban private ownership of hand guns.

 

I also would have zero problems banning most popular calibers of ammunition.

(The half life of a bullet ain't all that long and banning the sale of 9mm rounds, etc would render a lot of those 300 million guns near worthless)

 

Of course, this should be accompanied by gun buyback programs, as well as the option to switch over to approved weapons.

 

As I noted before, I favor a system in which

 

1. Private citizens can own almost anything they want, so long as the weapons are permanently stored at licensed gun ranges

2. Private citizens can store shot guns and long rifles at home for hunting and self defense (with strict limits on magazine size)

[blackshoe]

This painting is a self portrait and your agenda is terrifying.

What agenda? I have no agenda. As for "self portrait," you see what you want to see - and what you see does not exist.

[cherdano]

What agenda? I have no agenda. As for "self portrait," you see what you want to see - and what you see does not exist.

That's really amazing. You are suggesting to completely do away with the criminal justice system, replacing it by an improved civil justice system and deterrence via individual self-defence. Yet you claim not to have an agenda.

You are the radical in this discussion, and you aren't even aware that you are out of the mainstream. It's truly mind-boggling.

That's so far out there, I couldn't even make fun of it if I wanted to.

[cherdano]

So here is gun advocacy for dummies:

• If everybody had a gun, criminals would be deterred, we wouldn't even need our criminal justice system and could essentially do away with the police. You are imposing your own view ("I want to be able to defend myself with a gun") on anyone else, who may not want to have to own a gun in order to be protected from criminals. In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.
  
• Given my circumstances, I don't trust the police to adequately protect me from criminals. Even with the strictest gun laws possible, criminals will continue to be armed, and all I am asking for is to be able to defend my self on equal footing. If there are enough well-trained, responsible citizens with a CC permit like me, this will also help to protect anyone else from mass shootings. That's a position many non-gun owners may disagree with. But it's not idotic, and you may be taken seriously.
  

[Fluffy]

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place".

 

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

This gives me the same feeling as when a local goverment on a region in Spain pacted with the terrorists to avoid terrorists acts on their region, probably allowing terrorists free pass to atempt on the rest of the country.

 

I wonder if you'd feel guilty if you are armed, people know you are, and then somene kills someone you love who isn't armed.

 

[Fluffy]

The notion of being able to kill people who act against you may appeal to some: frankly I think of such an attitude as sick.

 

In my country, I think almost everyone would feel as sick as you do.

But there is also the fact that people have gone to jail for shooting assaulters that were 'only' carrying knives in his own home, meaning that your history would be really rare.

[Trinidad]

the best case scenario is that the perpetrator of the ADW is dead, because his intended victim killed him.

So, if someone threatens your life, you are allowed supposed to kill him?

 

Where do you draw the line?

How about if someone threatens your life in a less direct way? Picture yourself in a desert with another guy with a bottle of water who refuses to share. Would you shoot him? Or think of a medical insurer that refuses to pay for your life saving treatment. Their 'No' is certainly a deadly weapon. Would you be willing to use your gun to force them into making it a 'Yes' and let you live?

 

Rik

[nige1]

In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda

IMO, remarks like this are out of place in a rational discussion. (Also patently untrue). Keep going and the moderators could lock this thread as they did the Theology thread.

[Trinidad]

In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.

IMO, remarks like this are out of place in a rational discussion. (Also patently untrue). Keep going and the moderators could lock this thread as they did the Theology thread.

I think you are overreacting and/or misreading cherdano's post and quoting unfair.

 

If you reread his post, you will realize that his "you" is not referring to a particular person. It is "you" in the meaning of "one": "How do you make apple pie?" could mean "How do you make apple pie?" (I follow my grandmother's recipe) and it could mean "How does one make apple pie?" (One would look in a cookbook.)

 

While I wouldn't use the words cherdano uses (because I don't use those words in general), I doubt that you would have written your reply if he would have explicitly written "in short, one (i.e. he who thinks we shouldn't have police because he can defend himself) is an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda". I won't comment on the mental capacity of anybody who thinks like that, but I think it is reasonable to classify this train of logic as "radical".

 

Rik

[TimG]

The house where the recent New Mexico family shooting occurred had a security-style sign outside saying ‘‘Protected by Smith & Wesson Security Services.’’

 

The teen confessed to shooting his mother because he ‘‘had anger issues’’ and was annoyed with her, the records say. The teen had no history of mental illness, and drugs and alcohol didn’t appear to be a factor.

 

His plan was to ‘‘shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement.’’

A few things stick out to me: the shooter expected to be killed, as often seems to be the case in mass shootings, the shooter has no regard for his own life, the potential for armed opposition is not a deterrent, in some cases it may actually be hoped for; the shooter was not under the influence (so that he might be more likely to over-react to something) or confronted by an unexpected situation that might have set him off in a rage, this was something that an apparently normal kid contemplated and carried out; and the house was well protected with arms, but far from "protecting" the house and the inhabitants, the arms were used against those that lived there, there were "innocents" killed as a side effect of someone exercising their individual right to bare arms.

[mikeh]

[/size]

 

In my country, I think almost everyone would feel as sick as you do.

But there is also the fact that people have gone to jail for shooting assaulters that were 'only' carrying knives in his own home, meaning that your history would be really rare.

You should study what happens in the US. I don't doubt that what you say is correct in many countries, and maybe even in some states, but in the US, the right to defend one's property (never mind one's life) is sacrosanct in many states. Hence the 'free kill' story I related earlier.

 

I once encountered two young males breaking into my car. It was the second break-in in a week, and I had just had the window/dash repaired, so I was really pissed. I picked up a golf club and ran at them, which was stupid on all kinds of levels. Fortunately for all concerned, they ran away. I am really glad I didn't own a gun...I like to think that even in my anger I wouldn't have used a gun, but I am fairly sure I would have wanted/been tempted to threaten them with it, and once that sort of confrontation starts, it can escalate out of control very quickly. Imagine me doing that and the thieves pull out their own guns rather than run away?

[hrothgar]

A few things stick out to me: the shooter expected to be killed, as often seems to be the case in mass shootings, the shooter has no regard for his own life, the potential for armed opposition is not a deterrent, in some cases it may actually be hoped for;

 

I have seen claims that killers like the Aurora shooter deliberately choose targets where they are less likely to face an armed target. (As I understand the theory, the shooter isn't some much worried about dying, but rather not being able to kill as many people before he is shot).

 

I know that I saw specific claims that the theater in Aurora may have been deliberately chosen because the Cinemark chain banned guns and there was less chance of meeting an individual with a concealed weapon.

 

This line of argument is typically associated with John Lott.

[billw55]

Gun crime is not the only thing that guns defend against. Far from it. Often, a gun will be the only way to effectively defend against a substantially stronger attacker using only his hands.

 

Just recently in the news, a woman was at home with her children when her home was invaded. She gathered the kids and her handgun, and went to hide in a closet. She called her husband who called 911; but response was not fast enough. The intruder hunted through the house and finally found them. Cornered and out of options, she fired, hitting. God help her and her children if she did not have that gun. And a single shot weapon might not have been enough - what if the first shot missed?