[EmperorMagus]

death rattle, on 07 January 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

I think even under Castle Doctrine you'd still have to convince a jury that you felt threatened, so I don't think an extreme hypothetical like that would get past a jury. But the language does seem to be rather broadly permissive -- again, at the NRA's behest -- and the real-world cases do lead one to believe that even minor encroachments can be met with (and legally excuse) extreme force.

I want you to note that a man legally shot and killed a teenager who was running away and was 70 feet away.

In my hypothetical they are rushing towards the person. The DA probably won't even bother prosecuting.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 07 January 2017 - 02:23 AM

[worry]

Yah. I guess what I'm saying is we don't have to imagine that kind of scenario because the reality is bad enough.

[Andorion]

So about the Fort Lauderdale shooting,

apparently the suspect was having mental problems and was being prosecuted for domestic violence

How did he have a gun? It was legal for someone charged with assault and having mental problems to have a gun?

Secondly, how was the gun in his checked baggage? I thought all guns were banned in baggage?

[worry]

Nope. Guns are banned from carry-on bags but fine in checked baggage. So he arrived, grabbed his luggage, went to the restroom to load it, then did his thing.

Weird enough, FL was set to consider a bill next week that would open up concealed carry to most public spaces including airport terminals. Luckily this incident changed their minds. Just kidding! The bill's sponsor is more hung ho than ever and making as much hay of this mass shooting as possible. https://amp.usatoday...story/96273506/

[Tsundoku]

death rattle, on 07 January 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:

https://www.thetrace...d-boy-st-louis/
The Reasonable Killing of An 89-Pound Boy
A child is gunned down for stealing change in heavily armed St. Louis, and Missouri gets a taste of what justice looks like when the NRA calls the shots.An interesting look into how NRA-pushed legislation -- in this case Stand Your Ground's malevolent uncle, Castle Doctrine -- empowers fear and leads to disaster. How more guns -- or even the perception of more guns -- drives neighborhoods into being more dangerous, not less.

This just makes me feel sick.

How can anyone argue with this?

"Research supports his concern. Studies have found that states that implement “stand your ground” have experienced rising gun homicide rates. One paper, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November, determined that in the nine years after Florida instituted its “stand your ground” law, the state’s gun homicide rate had soared 31.6 percent."

Insanity.

But it won't change because it makes the gun makers rich and the tiny cocks of the NRA feel bigger. They own the politicians, and they all benefit from having poor people (of whatever demographic) kill each other because it increases the fear, which in turn increases their profits and power, and distracts the poor from the fact that all the power and wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It's all part of the bread and circuses.

[Cause]

Those law Might have gone too far but I have to say in some instances they go to far in the other way.

In my country getting a gun licence is now almost impossible. Never mind the corruption and incompetence of the licensing office to justify owning a gun you'd have to prove you need it for self defense, enjoy shooting as a sport and are an avid collector of firearms. Even though your collection will be one gun.

Police response in my country is probably generously 20 mins. If a burglar walked into my property and stole my TV and I was watching him the whole time I still could not shoot!

[worry]

Uh, good. You shouldn't be shooting people over a TV. Even if they get away with it, are never caught, and you lose your TV forever, that's a better outcome than you shooting someone over a TV.

[MTS]

Not to mention you greatly increase the risk of getting hurt yourself.

The robbery defence is also a silly hypothetical to use - a burglar is much more likely to flee than to retaliate upon discovery, and your reaction as an untrained civilian should not be to subdue a criminal (unarmed or otherwise) like you're John McClane. Police will take assault, battery, attempted murder etc. on a victim much more seriously than B&E and larceny, therefore in most instances, the victim is not home when burglaries occur, and I imagine other times it's unintentional. So your risk in that situation is (relatively) minor. Escalating the situation is just stupid.

Justifying this represents a pretty cavalier attitude towards life when it comes to crime and punishment. The cognitive dissonance is really weird amongst people that are both pro-gun and pro-life - criminals aren't deserving of life, but everyone else is!

This post has been edited by MTS: 07 January 2017 - 10:58 AM

[Cause]

death rattle, on 07 January 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Uh, good. You shouldn't be shooting people over a TV. Even if they get away with it, are never caught, and you lose your TV forever, that's a better outcome than you shooting someone over a TV.

I don't own a gun and don't plan to. I also don't want to to shoot someone over a TV. Owning a gun to my mind is a huge responsibility that should requite constant vigilance and training. Otherwise is very likely more a liability than an asset.

Having said that there are very high risk groupings in my country (rural farmers for instance) and brutal home invasions accompanied by murder, beatings and rape are not at all uncommon in my country. You should not have to wait for the knife to be in your guts before you can react.

A friends of mine, a police reservist (so in my mind trained and acceptable to own a gun), once stopped three burglars in his house. One was upstairs tying up and raping his mother (cant comment on the details as I don't know but that was how it was described) which he shot dead. He wounded a second but both of the other two managed to flee. During the gunfight one of his bullets missed, went through a tv, and hit the wall behind. The bullet naturally deformed and the police became convinced it was a different caliber to other bullets on the scene. My friend for at least 3 months was the suspect of a criminal case to judge whether he was allowed to shoot in self defense and was asked to prove he did not own a second unlicensed firearm for killing people! Its impossible to prove you don't own a second gun! To my mind, that is not the treatment a citizen should receive for defending his home. Does it need to be investigated? Certainly. The crazy situation described above where a person lures strangers onto there properties to shoot is something obviously not okay. Still in my mind the law abiding home owner should receive the benefit of the doubt and greater rights than the law breaking burglars.

So as I said I dont know the specific details. You dont ask a friend how close his mother came to being raped. At what point does self defense become viable? If 3 men are holding your mother against her will and have her tied with rope and are armed can you fire?

In my country if you start a fight in self defense and gain the upper hand you must stop because your now in control and no longer in danger. The self defense must be only as great as needed and only in proportion to the threat. This to my mind is an absurdity. Fights are chaotic things (I imagine anyway, I have very little experience or training). If I ever get in a fight for my life I guarantee you I wont stop until my opponent is dead or the very least clearly unconscious. Even if he drops his knife or gun how could I be sure he wont be able to get it again.

In the end though I suppose what I really find so incredulous is this. On the one hand you have the right to self defense in my country, the law is even fairly generous. However the criminals have a right to life. Our supreme court argued that the right to life is paramount. So while in theory you can shoot to defend your home, property and life their exists a serious problem of ambiguity as to how these two conflicting rights interact. In the end short of having a gun firing in your direction you cant be sure if the law is on your side. This ambiguity in my mind should be fixed. The law should be so clear a child could understand it. No one should die for a second of indecision of not knowing if he can or cant defend himself.

[Silencer]

Sounds like an issue of the legal system more than the law, Cause.

Frankly I think self defence should be legal, but it shouldn't be a reason to own a gun. And you should be required to show as much restraint as reasonable when executing said self defence. I.e. If you kill someone in self defence, you're only guilty of manslaughter (which it is - unintentional murder by way of going too far in defence of your self).

Simple. The tricky part is establishing whether you acted in self defence. On your own property with strangers in your house, then yes, benefit of the doubt.

[MTS]

Cause, on 07 January 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

This ambiguity in my mind should be fixed. The law should be so clear a child could understand it. No one should die for a second of indecision of not knowing if he can or cant defend himself.

The problem is that this isn't a clear cut issue, so no law will be able to encompass every situation, or account for all the potential mitigating factors in a case, particularly when you have two competing rights - the right to life and self-defence.

This is why we have judges and juries, to interpret the law on a case by case basis to determine a fair and just outcome. The problem there is then one of judicial philosophy, where two judges can come to different verdicts, necessitating appeals courts etc. Like Silencer said, a problem of the legal system, which humanity has yet to solve.

Of course, laws can be made clearer and tweaked, and judicial procedure can be overhauled, but every person has a different barometer as to what's acceptable, and what should be the standard in society. That means the goalposts are always shifting, and the slowness of judicial procedure and politics mean that laws are not quick to change, or reflect even the majority's opinion. Gun control is a perfect example. What constitutes a good reason to own a firearm? Which firearms should be allowed? In what circumstances can they be used? The complexity of laws surrounding these issues spirals out of control pretty quickly.

[Macros]

Well this also falls back into (in my mind) was is a reasonable need.

ok you want a gun for house defense. go get trained in how to safely use, store and maintain a gun. go make sure you arent bat shit insane. go get a license to own a gun. get a pistol. keep it in your home. get it registered, get enough bullets for a clip, and possibly a back up clip. and get it finger print activated.

this is the most anyone who is not a hunter can justify having. ever. and even to me that's a fucking stretch

you do not, and never will, need an assault rifle.
or a laser sight.

this is the simple problem with america's gun laws. peoples use of the 2nd or whichever amendment (made at a time where you could max out at a musket or a rifle, and by rifle I mean a fancy musket) to justfiy having insane weapons in their house. you can own all the guns you want, the us army has jet fighters and drones, a well regulated militia is irelevant today, so fucking forget your amendment. for self DEFENSE you do not need a weapon with assualt in the name

[Silencer]

The thing is, proper storage of a firearm precludes its use in most self defence situations anyway.

If you are storing your firearm in a locked gun safe with the magazine out and preferably unloaded, like you're supposed to in most countries with proper gun control legislation (you know, to prevent things like your children or burglars from getting a hold of guns), then in a home invasion you have neither the time nor the fine motor skills necessary to get your gun out and load it. And often not even the presence of mind to consider it - power fantasies aside, most people do flight or fight in a home invasion and opening safes is not something your panicked brain jumps to doing.

This is why when a gun is used in "self defence" it is looked upon as suspicious - how did you have time to get it, and why was it your first choice?

The exception would be law enforcement or military personnel who might have their firearm out of storage on a daily basis due to requirements of their job, but for average civilians, you'd only have it out to clean or take it to the range. If you were cleaning it, it was unloaded and probably stripped down, so again, how did you have time to put it back together and use it? (And while with practice you can get very fast at assembling your gun, why was there an apparently loaded magazine on hand? That should still have been secured in the safe, etc.)

These are all reasons why advocates for self defence with guns are often looked on as gun nuts. You can't seriously consider a firearm for home defence if you're being responsible with it. Thus why farmers in regions with wild animals have a defence - when a bear or Wolf or what have you comes into your back yard, you have time to retrieve a shotgun from storage. When a person breaks into your home, you don't.
Note also the staggering number of cases of small children involved in firearm incidents in the States, indicating that said proper storage isn't happening. Thus further undermining the credibility of the "responsible armed citizen" brigade.

[worry]

In the US there's already been a Pandora's Box situation with guns though, so those very reasonable arguments just aren't as convincing here where guns are already proliferate. The 2nd Amendment was such a big mistake. That said, there are plenty of reasonable, realistic alternatives for even America's situation that hardliners still oppose (and generally get their way -- when you say $$$ is the determining factor you ain't kidding). Like I don't have an issue with a gun in the home for self defense, but I think our standards for the responsibilities of gun owners are a joke. We talk a lot about gun safety, but it generally comes to nothing because it's not policy so much as recommendation (like "please wear a condom" -- "please store your gun safely"). And of course here it varies by state and even locality.

[MTS]

In one sense I can understand how those arguments don't resonate - gun culture seems very ingrained in the US. So you have a situation where multiple generations have grown up safely around guns, and it's a normalised experience. Guns are fun, they're useful in certain contexts, and they can enable the opportunity for family bonding experiences. Any attempts to regulate guns are thus framed through that experience - 'I'm careful, I learned how to use guns properly, so why does the government need to interfere at all? I'm a responsible gun owner!' The validity of gun control laws can easily be viewed primarily through how it affects them personally (this happens with most things).

Gun control is aiming at a societal shift though, where the point of the laws is to prevent tragic incidents surrounding guns, incidents that will never happen to the vast majority of gun owners. Opposition seems to me almost like an invincibility complex - why create 'onerous' regulations that burden the majority to placate the needs of the few? Or it's like skydiving and other extreme sports - extreme danger is just a risk to be factored in, and any regulation just unfairly restricts the rights of those who are happy with that.

While I can certainly understand this kind of worldview, I don't understand how to a lot of Americans feel some Constitutional rights are alienable in particular circumstances - like the right to privacy - while bearing arms is the lynchpin of American freedom, not to be tampered with under any circumstances, as it's a threat to freedom (in fact, it should be actively encouraged in all facets of society, like in church of all places!).

[EmperorMagus]

MTS, on 08 January 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

While I can certainly understand this kind of worldview, I don't understand how to a lot of Americans feel some Constitutional rights are alienable in particular circumstances - like the right to privacy - while bearing arms is the lynchpin of American freedom, not to be tampered with under any circumstances, as it's a threat to freedom (in fact, it should be actively encouraged in all facets of society, like in church of all places!).

I know this is a glib response without citations, but I don't think many people will argue against it.

The reason for this difference is simple, the right to privacy is not profitable for any large corporation. Therefore, it's not presented to people by the formidable advertising machine that corporations have in this day and age. The lack of this advertisement means that a lot of people are not aware of this right to privacy, or they are not aware that this right is being infringed upon.

Compare that to guns, which are a source of revenue for a lot of corporations. The corporations pay the NRA (fucks be upon them), who pays a shit ton of money to various advertisers. People see these ads, and due to the recency and repetition effects "The Second Amendment" becomes one of their inalienable rights, while the right to privacy can be trampled upon in the interests of "National Security" or whatever else. The NRA (fucks be upon them) also lobbies politicians, which means they harp on about second amendment rights all the time and exacerbate this issue.

Unfortunately, money talks.

[worry]

For the record, most Americans -- like a vaaast majority -- support gun control measures. This is almost 100% an industry/lobbying impediment issue.

[Macros]

I dunno about vaaaaassstt worry. There's a lot of crazy out there that just flip the second you mention gun control

DONT TAKE MY GUNS 2ND AMMENDMENT GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

[HoosierDaddy]

FYI: The right to privacy is not an enshrined right. It is a judicially interpreted right combining the 4th and other various Bill of Rights amendments. The second amendment is an enshrined right (albeit terribly misrepresented in modern times, but that gets into living vs. dead constitutional interpretation; which the right to privacy is a living interpretation in testament and the second is a dead interpretation).

It's not clear cut. Obviously I'd prefer the fucking things banned or very, very, strictly controlled. NRA has big money, though.

[worry]

Macros, on 08 January 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

I dunno about vaaaaassstt worry. There's a lot of crazy out there that just flip the second you mention gun control

DONT TAKE MY GUNS 2ND AMMENDMENT GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

'Gun control' is a catchall, obvs., but there are very popular proposals, and even some kinds of bans have majority support. From Pew Research 2015:



The complexities are discussed a bit more in the accompanying article: http://www.pewresear...-united-states/