Va. Tech Shooting

[NickCole]

Well said!

As for guns.... firearms are designed and manufactured, bought and owned for a variety of purposes.

Really?

What are they made for other than killing?

 

[69Strat]

There you go snipping at posts and changing what is said to fit what it is you want it to say. You've done that twice now.

It's clear that you have no productive counter-arguments.

Which is why what you said here is no more than a sorry excuse for a cop-out: Indeed, looks like we're done.

You were never interested in debating the issues, so, yes, we are done.

Good luck on reading and comprehension, it seems to be an issue for you along with making arguments without fallacies.

The only reason you perceive a problem with reading comprehension is because I don't happen to subscribe to your garden variety of bullshit. You should know all about logical fallacies, since you yourself use them, like your red herring to divert attention away from responding to a question that was hinged around your own argument. You shot yourself in the foot.

 

[69Strat]

I would think 69Strat would have agreed with me at least ONCE; when I came back only to toss a defense for his choice of avatar, which I notice he changed since that poster's comment.

Oh yes, my avatar.

In this case, a newly registered JUB user found my previous avatar offensive because of its sexual overtones and made negative comments about it. It has since been changed. I've also edited my gallery, as I wouldn't want to offend any one, now, would I?

 

[divcurl0]

So you believe that if someone invades your country, there should be no resistance unless the invader actually starts killing people?

Yeah but how could I possibly know these 'invaders' have the intention of killing me? From my pespective, these people who have just shown up, have shown no agression towards me - they are simply visitors. Its as random as saying that you should kill your best friend when he next visits you because he himself might have the intention of killing you.

Since firearms in the U.S. are used preventively substantially more than they are criminally, the cost-benefit is in favor of defensive use of firearms.

I didn't define the cost-benefit in economic terms if you read what I wrote. You can probably (rightly) say that it is less likely someone will be burgled in the US(than say, the UK), but the 'opportunity cost', if you will, has many real human faces to it.

But if you want to play economics and claim that the cost exceeds the benefit, then your position argues for taking firearms away from the police as well.

Yes, wasn't that exactly my position? Firearms effectivly give the police free reign, because a firearm take human life away in a flash. No one should be given so much power.

Your acknowledgment of the fact that "police, when given free reign, invariably abuse their powers", however, points back in the direction that citizens must be armed -- as one of the Founding Fathers in the U.S. put it, "The great goal is that every man be armed".

no, that 'acknowledgement' actually points in the direction that no-one (police, me, you, Mr Bush, No-one) should have so much power. Power is addictive, you first start off with a bit of power, then you need more, and there you go you become desensitised to and commit appaling crimes. I encourage you (again) to read about the Milgram Experiment and its conclusions.

Nothing can resist armed force but armed force, unless the one resisted does not really believe in widespread application of armed force

This is simply untrue. The British with their overwhelming military power were resisted through non-violent struggle ('Satyagraha'). Infact history is replete with such precedences, just look at the Heroic and Noble Civil Right's movement in your own country.

(even Ghandi recognized that, calling the disarming of the people the greatest sin of the British Raj).

Where do you get your facts from. Very untrue, yet again. The peasants of India could barely afford to eat; they most certainly did not have any weapons *to* disarm!!

So you're in favor of no one being able to stop the murders like the one at V. Tech?

I've never been anywhere where guns are "glorified" -- not at NRA gatherings, or Gun Owners of America, or gun shows, or shooting ranges. Guns are enjoyed -- but that's no different than golf clubs, foils (fencing), hang gliders, surf boards, DVD players.... This "glorification" business is a fantasy of people who have never bothered to try to see things as they are.

In fact, I'd say that if there's anything in American culture that is "glorified", it would be music groups and sports.

If guns were prohibited, 31 people would not have lost their lives, youd be ridiculous to argue against that. If you look at Cho's vids, he is seen with a gun more often than not. This suggests he romanticises this ultimate weapon. Would he have done what he did with say, a knife? The answer is no, because there is nothing sexy about a killing with such a crude weapon, and more obviously because it would have been physically possible to overpower him.

You can make excuses all you want, but there is such a thing as evil. What the gunman did at V. Tech was evil, just as rape is evil, arson is evil, etc. If you don't recognize that there's such a thing as evil, you have a serious blind spot.

Please let's not enter this arena for both our sakes! Let me just say I respect your view, but I disagree with it completly.

In anycase, I hope you agree that Cho was a loner who was pretty low down on 'Maslow's hierarchy of psychological needs'. Girls wouldn't even give him the time of day. I personally know people who are social misfits - they want the same level of fulfilment as everybody else but cannot get it; so desperate for attention, the resort to things like pretending they have cancer, etc. Cho was no different, he just wanted to be immortalised. The problem is with the narcississm and decadence that pervades western society in general but much more so in America (like I bet even 5 year olds have MySpace pages in your neck of the woods!)

Besides which, the stance you've been taking is that victims have no rights -- you say I should let my house be robbed, that I shouldn't shoot back at the guy trying to kill me.... Without the concept of individual sovereignty, all there are is victims -- and predators. And as I've said before, in such a situation, the only "defense" against the predator is to huddle like sheep and hope you get on the inside of the huddle so you're not the one preyed on.

I can't figure out how you think one criminal should be allowed to violate someone else but another can't. Both the rapist and the trespasser have surrendered their participation in the true social contract, and thereby set themselves outside its protection.

I see the consistency where you would prefer a culture where the victim is punished and the criminal goes free; it matches your belief that we should let criminals do as they please. You need only take one small step to reach the position where we would award criminals medals.

I'll leave your sweeping statements aside. If you are being raped, you have every right to defend yourself, you can incapacitate the attacker, poke his eye out, whatever, but you can't take away his life because it is not a proportionate response to the crime, hideous as it is, he is commiting. A person's life is the ultimate freedom; it is the freedom of the body and freedom of the will. Even in social contract theory, a person who does not 'cooperate' is not punished to extent he looses his freedom of the will.

 

[divcurl0]

There you go snipping at posts and changing what is said to fit what it is you want it to say. You've done that twice now. Which is why what you said here is no more than a sorry excuse for a cop-out:

OK, I haven't followed your conversation with 69Strat that closely. But he raised some very valid points eg.

Thus, to argue the relevance of the 2nd Amendment as it applies to our modern multicultural society is the equivalent of asserting that only whites have the right to bear arms, since the original doctrine makes no exception for any race outside of itself to exercise such rights.

It is in this context that the right to bear arms must be amended to better reflect individual interests against those interests of society in regulating and controlling the purchase and ownership of firearms, for the benefit, peace and general good of the community.

...which you (and Kulindahr) have evaded, with a sensational string of kind words:rollseyes:

I think it was the guy with the rabbit avatar who said that the "Amendment has not been repealed and no Supreme Court decisions have detracted from its current applicability". To that I'd simply say, hey, its not my fault you've got weak democratic institutions incapable of modernising.

People who mindlessly bang on about the "right to bear arms" but who leave out the "regulated militia" bit are just lunatics. That's a bit like leaving out "thou shalt not" in "thou shalt not steal". You now have a professional standing army, so the 2nd has been rendered irrelavent. This inane logic must require that you go round carrying muskets an dualing pistols and go "yeeeee haaa" (ofcourse doing that weird thing with the rope). 69Strat was making the point that the consitution simply needs to be interpreted in a modern context - this observation should have been mkde 100 years ago!!!

I take a somewhat more atheist view about the constitution - The fact of the matter is that the founding fathers were racist bastards, and to take such a literalist position with respect to the sacred 2nd "commandment", is to immortalise them. Even if you have a modicum of commitment to elementary moral principles, the images of Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. should provoke a real sense of outrage and disgust within you.

 

[NickCole]

Uh... shooting targets?

Yes and the targets are living things.

Except in target practice, which is for improving one's aim for when one is aiming at the real target.

Guns are not designed or manufactured for the purpose of shooting at paper bullseyes or milk bottles. They're made for killing things.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is an interesting fact that slaves were held by a number of Native American tribes – not freed until after the Civil War [in 1866]. (BTW, for whatever it's worth, I am genetically 1/8th Native American [Indian].)

I'm only (roughly) 1/16. The tribe here requires "more than 1/16th", drat it!

It is also true that African “indentured servants” had become landowners at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

Thank you. It gets tiresome seeing how some people here have such an axe to grind that they ignore facts or, forced to acknowledge them, twist them to fir their agenda.

 

[Kulindahr]

divcurl0, you have nice views in abstract, but in the real world they amount to the equivalent of surrendering to Hitler if he drove in with his army politely.

If you think someone who has kicked in your door and is carrying a knife is simply a visitor, you have a problem. By merely entering my property without invitation, he has committed aggression -- that's the principle behind the ancient "castle doctrine". Granted, if someone walks up to the front door and rings the bell (or the equivalent), he's not an invader -- but if he hops the back fence and is peering in the windows, he is.

Your fantasy of a world without guns is just that -- a fantasy. As I've pointed out over and again, any high school shop section has the means to make guns, and I could order from Sears tools for their manufacture. Heck -- my best buddy, in Indiana, made a rifle using blacksmith's tools! The technology is out there, and abundant, and the evil -- which the studies you refer to illustrate quite nicely -- types in the world will make use of it, whether or not there is a ban. The only result of a ban on weapons of any sort will be a return to "might makes right".

On the Ghandi reference, the citation I'm familiar with has different wording, but I presume he said it more than once. Here's what I just found:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

~ "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238

And your comments about peaceful resistance merely confirm what I said about it.

Power... since no one can be trusted to have power over others, and since there are always some who will try to have power over others, the only solution is that everyone should have the power to resist those who would have power over them -- thus the right to self defense, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Prohibiting guns would not have stopped the V. Tech murderer -- even the best experts in security say that. So long as the technology to make guns is available, there will be guns, and people who want them will get them. It is ridiculously easy to make a firearm, especially with the information available on the internet. If guns were prohibited, those 30+ people would still be dead; the murderer would have just had to work a little harder to get his weapons.
Unless, of course, you want to impose such tyranny as the world has never seen, banning not only the items themselves, but the technology needed to make them, the information about them... and that could be called "Welcome to the fifteenth century".

Your position baffles me. In essence, you are maintaining that if Islamic extremists were to flood Europe, no one should bother them until they actually start shooting. But then it would be too late! While it is your right to be so pacifist, to insist that a whole society should be is to invite, even beg for, that society's annihilation at the hands of those without your scruples.

A final thought: WRT the social contract, I said the "true social contract". The only social contract with any actual validity is the truth "You own yourself" and its obvious corollary that this applies to every person. The moment an individual demonstrates that he does not agree, that he believes he has ownership over others -- which any act of aggression by invasion accomplishes -- he has forfeited his standing under that contract, and I have the right to defend myself as I please. Maintaining otherwise is to deny the dignity of the human person by insisting that every individual is subject to ownership by the predatory.

 

[NickCole]

Heh, ok. I'm guessing there's a reason behind you making that point, but I'll be damned if I remember what it was.

It was an excellent point, I made it well and no doubt had an excellent reason for making it ...... but like you I'll be damned if I can remember what it was.

 

[69Strat]

What fallacy? Where is this red herring to some question?

Your red herring fallacy to divert attention away from my question.

Your Argument:
NAs and slaves had no recognized rights under law nor the right to bear arms, since they were not citizens.

Continuing along the lines of Your Argument, I asserted that it would primarily leave whites with those rights, since those other groups were excluded.

My Question: Is it your position that only whites should have the right to bear arms?

Not only was the question framed around Your Argument, but it also established that since those racial groups had no such rights, that such rights were primarily held by whites.

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms was rooted in racism and was flawed from the outset.

I called you on it.

More like, you shot yourself in the foot!

Finally, since you raised the issue of retard earlier on, you might want to look into your own retarded behavior and ad hominems attacks on this thread. If you read my threads, you will find that I respond to people in the same manner, in which they respond to me. It's that simple.

Now, we are done.

 

[opinterph]

The Brinks guard in your example would be using deadly force to protect the assets, since it is their "primary" mission and not just "incidental" to their role as custodians of the cargo. Their job is to protect the assets, which would automatically presume that they would have to exert measures to ensure their survival, if faced with such a mortal threat.

Undoubtedly, the nature of their job increases the probability that they may be challenged to relinquish possession of the property by a would-be robber; however, it does not follow that they are allowed to exceed the limitations imposed by law.

All citizens, regardless of their occupation, should “automatically presume that they would have to exert measures to ensure their survival, if faced with such a mortal threat.”

In short, the right to use deadly force is not just limited to the protection of life, but also extends to property, as in the case of an armed Brinks guard tasked with protecting money and valuables.

The use of deadly force is generally unacceptable as a means to protect property. State law varies considerably on this issue and may derive from statutory or common law. For example, in New York statutory law provides that deadly force may be used to prevent arson or burglary of property; however, it is disallowed in situations where retreat can eliminate the need to use deadly force. In North Carolina common law allows deadly force to be used only to protect one’s home. In Ohio common law does not allow deadly force to be used to protect property and there is also a duty to retreat from confrontation. In California statutory law allows the use of deadly force to protect property only in cases involving intended "forcible and atrocious" felony. In Michigan common law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property – and there is a duty to retreat except for security guards hired to maintain order …

In most states, private security guards have the same rights as ordinary citizens. They are not considered peace officers unless they are peace officers (e.g. off-duty cop working in the role of private security). Though I was taught how to make an arrest [citizen’s arrest], my instructors strongly counseled against doing so. They insisted that it is always preferable to “call the cops.”

Though Brinks armed guards are hired to protect property, their use of deadly force is limited to situations involving a threat of death or serious injury to persons. They must generally attempt to resolve conflicts without using deadly force (which may include a requirement to retreat). They should resort to deadly force only in situations where it is the only course of action available to respond to an immediate danger (to people). For example, if an apparently unarmed person snatches a bag of money (property) from a Brinks armed guard and that person is fleeing away from the guard, there is no immediate threat of death or serious injury. Hence, deadly force would be inappropriate.

Armored car guards protect money and valuables during transit. In addition, they protect individuals responsible for making commercial bank deposits from theft or bodily injury. When the armored car arrives at the door of a business, an armed guard enters, signs for the money, and returns to the truck with the valuables in hand. Carrying money between the truck and the business can be extremely hazardous; because of this risk, armored car guards usually wear bulletproof vests.
...
Guards who carry weapons must be licensed by the appropriate government authority, and some receive further certification as special police officers, allowing them to make limited types of arrests while on duty. Armed guard positions have more stringent background checks and entry requirements than those of unarmed guards because of greater insurance liability risks. Compared with unarmed security guards, armed guards and special police typically enjoy higher earnings and benefits, greater job security, and more potential for advancement. Usually, they also are given more training and responsibility.

U.S. Department of Labor

Armored car guards protect money and valuables during transit. In addition, they protect individuals responsible for making commercial bank deposits from theft or bodily injury. Carrying money between the truck and the business can be extremely hazardous for guards. Because of this risk, armored car guards usually wear bullet-proof vests and are authorized to carry firearms for their own protection, and must complete a firearms training program to obtain their Possession and Acquisition License.

triOS College (Canada)

 

[69Strat]

Undoubtedly, the nature of their job increases the probability that they may be challenged to relinquish possession of the property by a would-be robber; however, it does not follow that they are allowed to exceed the limitations imposed by law.

No argument there.

The use of deadly force is generally unacceptable as a means to protect property.

In principle, I agree, but there would be an exception in the case of an armed Brinks guard who's "primary" mission is to protect the money and valuables they transport.

I think one of the the reasons for this exception is that as a society, we place a greater importance on our money and valuables, and have a higher expectation that they will be protected and defended, so commerce can keep flowing, and banks can keep the doors open.

For example, if an apparently unarmed person snatches a bag of money (property) from a Brinks armed guard and that person is fleeing away from the guard, there is no immediate threat of death or serious injury. Hence, deadly force would be inappropriate.

This example entails a simple robbery wherein the robber is taking and carrying away the goods. Absent a showing that the robber posed a threat to the guard, I agree that deadly force would not be appropriate.

On the other hand, an armed criminal with a semi-auto assault rifle moving towards a Brinks truck guard in a threatning manner would likely be shot on site, in order to protect the Brinks cargo (which he is tasked with protecting), and personnel.

 

[opinterph]

The use of deadly force is generally unacceptable as a means to protect property.

As the principle of this statement is generally true according to the law, whatever “fertile ground” may remain for us to expand our discussion apparently relates more-directly to societal norms, intrinsic values, and the essential preservation of economic viability. Perhaps our expectation to maintain these (and other systems) in an uninterrupted fashion reflects our unwillingness to be disturbed – or some measure of the basic impatience we foster. We tolerate excessive commercial advertisements, continuous sensory overload in most aspects of our daily lives, horrific traffic, long hours at the office, etc., but have a very limited appetite for whatever things break the cycle of our familiarity. We expect a secure homeland and are quick to endorse an indictment against whatever things we perceive to interfere with our sense of progress and accomplishment.

… an armed criminal with a semi-auto assault rifle moving towards a Brinks truck guard in a [threatening] manner would likely be shot on site …

After these situations are concluded, the determination is often left to a jury to decide. Okay, so the guy was shot on [sight]. How did the shooter determine that he was a criminal? Was it really a semi-automatic assault rifle and does that really matter? Did this event occur in a state that requires Duty to Retreat? … A well-informed jury may also be asked to consider other parameters, such as the shooter’s apparent prejudice against the decedent’s stereotype.

Of course the most vital question regards what it was about the decedent’s approach that seemed threatening. Was the threat directed toward the payload or the individual(s) guarding the payload? Was the threat truly credible and was the act of shooting the decedent the only course of action reasonably available as a response to the danger?

The defendant is charged by indictment with the murder of (insert victim's name). Count __________ of the indictment reads as follows: (Read pertinent count of indictment)
A person is guilty of murder if he/she:
(1) purposely causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death; or
(2) knowingly causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of murder, the State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death or serious bodily injury resulting in (insert victim's name) death, and
(2) that the defendant did so purposely or knowingly.
One of the elements that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted purposely or knowingly.
A person who causes another's death does so purposely when it is the person's conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.
A person who causes another's death does so knowingly when the person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.
The nature of the purpose or knowledge with which the defendant acted toward (insert victim's name) is a question of fact for you the jury to decide. Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or witnesses who could testify that the defendant stated, for example, that (his/her) purpose was to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death; or that (he/she) knew that (his/her) conduct would cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances. Such things as the place where the acts occurred, the weapon used, the location, number and nature of wounds inflicted, and all that was done or said by the defendant preceding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the events leading to the death of (insert victim's name) are among the circumstances to be considered.
Although the State must prove that the defendant acted either purposely or knowingly, the State is not required to prove a motive. If the State has proved the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be found guilty of that offense regardless of the defendant's motive or lack of a motive. If the State, however, has proved a motive, you may consider that insofar as it gives meaning to other circumstances. On the other hand, you may consider the absence of motive in weighing whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
A homicide or a killing with a deadly weapon, such as (described the deadly weapon used) in itself would permit you to draw an inference that the defendant's purpose was to take life or cause serious bodily injury resulting in death. A deadly weapon is any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. In your deliberations you may consider the weapon used and the manner and circumstances of the killing, and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (shot) (stabbed) and killed (insert victim's name) with a (gun) (knife) you may draw an inference from the weapon used, that is, the (gun) (knife), and from the manner and circumstances of the killing, as to the defendant's purpose or knowledge.
The other element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.
"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is not an issue, charge the following paragraph: )
Whether the killing is committed purposely or knowingly, causing death or serious bodily injury resulting in death must be within the design or contemplation of the defendant.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is an issue, charge the following: )
Causation has a special meaning under the law. To establish causation, the State must prove two elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that but for the defendant's conduct, (insert victim's name) would not have died.
Second, (insert victim's name) death must have been within the design or contemplation of the defendant. If not, it must involve the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated, and must also not be too remote, too accidental in its occurrence, or too dependent on another's volitional act to have a just bearing on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of (his/her) offense. In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert victim's name) death was not so unexpected or unusual that it would be unjust to find the defendant guilty of murder.
(Where the defendant and State offer contrasting factual theories of causation, each version should be summarized for the jury.)
If you determine that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant purposely or knowingly caused death or serious bodily injury resulting in death, you must find the defendant guilty of murder.
If, on the other hand, you determine that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant purposely or knowingly caused death or serious bodily injury resulting in death, then you must find him/her not guilty of murder (and go on to consider whether the defendant should be convicted of the crimes of aggravated or reckless manslaughter).
A person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter if (he/she) recklessly causes the death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of aggravated man slaughter, the State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and
(2) that the defendant did so recklessly, and
(3) that the defendant did so under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
One element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted recklessly.
A person who causes another's death does so recklessly when he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to defendant, (his/her) disregard of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in the same situation.
In other words, you must find that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk of causing death. If you find that defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk of causing death, you must determine whether the risk that (he/she) disregarded was substantial and unjustifiable. In doing so, you must consider the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and the circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light of those factors, defendant's disregard of that risk was a gross deviation f rom the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in defendant's situation.
(Summarize, if helpful, all of the evidence relevant to recklessness, including any contrasting accounts of events by the defense and the State.)
Another element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. The phrase "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life" does not focus on defendant's state of mind, but rather on the circumstances under which you find (he/she) acted. If, in light of all the evidence, you find that defendant's conduct resulted in a probability as opposed to a mere possibility of death, then you may find that he/she acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. On the other hand, if you find that his/her conduct resulted in only a possibility of death, then you must acquit him/her of aggravated manslaughter and consider the offense of reckless manslaughter, which I will explain to you shortly.
The final element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is not an issue, charge the following: )
You must find that (insert victim's name) would not have died but for defendant's conduct.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is an issue, charge the following: )
Causation has a special meaning under the law. To establish causation, the State must prove two elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that but for the defendant's conduct, (insert victim's name) would not have died.
Second, (insert victim's name) death must have been within the risk of which the defendant was aware. If not, it must involve the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result of the defendant's conduct, and must also not be too remote, too accidental in its occurrence, or too dependent on another's volitional act to have a just bearing on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of (his/her) offense. In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert victim's name) death was not so unexpected or unusual that it would be unjust to find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter.
(Where the defendant and State offer contrasting factual theories of causation, each version should be summarized for the jury.)
If after consideration of all the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused (insert victim's name) death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, then your verdict should be guilty of aggravated manslaughter).
If, however, after consideration of all the evidence you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused (insert victim's name) death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, you must find the defendant not guilty of aggravated manslaughter (and go on to consider whether the defendant should be convicted of reckless manslaughter.)
A person is guilty of reckless manslaughter if (he/she) recklessly causes the death of another person.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of reckless manslaughter, the State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and
(2) that the defendant did so recklessly.
One element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted recklessly.
A person who causes another's death does so recklessly when he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to defendant, (his/her) disregard of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in the same situation.
In other words, you must find that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk of causing death. If you find that defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk of causing death, you must determine whether that risk that (he/she) disregarded was substantial and unjustifiable. In doing so, you must consider the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and the circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light of those factors, defendant's disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in defendant's situation.
(Summarize, if helpful, all of the evidence relevant to recklessness, including any contrasting accounts of events by the defense and the State.)
The other element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is not an issue, charge the following: )
You must find that (insert victim's name) would not have died but for defendant's conduct.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is an issue, charge the following: )
Causation has a special meaning under the law. To establish causation, the State must prove two elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that but for the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have died.
Second, (insert victim's name) death must have been within the risk of which the defendant was aware. If not, it must involve the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result of the defendant's conduct and must also not be too remote, too accidental in its occurrence, or too dependent on another's volitional act to have a just bearing on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of (his/her) offense. In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert victim's name) death was not so unexpected or unusual that it would be unjust to find the defendant guilty of reckless manslaughter.
(Where the defendant and State offer contrasting factual theories of causation, each version should be summarized for the jury.
If after consideration of all the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused (insert victim's name) death, then your verdict should be guilty of reckless manslaughter.
If, however, after consideration of all the evidence you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused (insert victim's name) death, you must find the defendant not guilty of reckless manslaughter.

 

[radical matt]

To Divcurl0:

I like Thomas Paine's words on the subject. Like him, I wish all guns on earth could be removed from existence, even guns in the military, and of all nations in the world. As I said in my looong post on page 8 (which apparently no one read, sadly...), the fewer guns that exist, the MORE dangerous they become, because they give people even greater power to cause destruction because there's no ballance of power to even the playing field. I know it's long, but if you can, read it. You seem like an intelligent person and I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Thomas, btw, was around the time of the Founding Fathers and wrote Common Sense (among other pamphlets.) His conclusion is the same as my own; if you CAN get rid of all guns on the face of the Earth and see to it that no more are ever made...and by guns, I mean ALL weapons of war of the modern era, guns, missiles, tanks, fighter jets, ect. Maybe even as far as bows and arrows and swords and spears...though those (especially spears) would be even MORE impossible to totally get rid of, simply because individuals can make them. But yes, IF yo can get rid of EVERY LAST ONE, then do it. But if you can't, if even ONE remains, then I want the freedom to have it, because I AM a good person and only use what "power" I have to help, mend, and defend, because that is my nature.

You said that power creates a desire for more power, but at least in my case, that's never happened. Given, I don't have much, but I don't desire it in any way outside of being able to use it for protection and healing of people. They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I'd ammend this to that power cannot truly corrupt the pure of heart; people that wish to devote their lives to the good of their fellow Human beings, brothers and sisters and cousins around the world. After all, we're all in this together, I wanna help people out as much as I can. So unless you think I'm totally unique amont all of mankind to be this way, then you might should rethink your statement about power begetting only more power.

I'll leave your sweeping statements aside. If you are being raped, you have every right to defend yourself, you can incapacitate the attacker, poke his eye out, whatever, but you can't take away his life because it is not a proportionate response to the crime, hideous as it is, he is commiting. A person's life is the ultimate freedom; it is the freedom of the body and freedom of the will. Even in social contract theory, a person who does not 'cooperate' is not punished to extent he looses his freedom of the will.

This I have to break. Hard.

If someone is raping me, I'm going to hurt them...bad. They forfited their "ultimate freedom", their right to life, by violating my body. If they survive the encounter, it will be simply because my own mercy kicked in before I finished them off. THEY are evil, and by that evil, by that violation of the first, last, and most fundamental freedom, MY right of life and MY right of my own body, by them violating that, they have no more rights. And I say this after having thought about it a lot. Some people who have been raped say they would rather have been killed or even tortured, and some kill themselves. Why? Having someone truly violate your body you never get over, because unlike your house, your stuff, your land...things that you can replace and get over, you can't replace your body, you're stuck with it for the rest of your life, and for the rest of your life, you'll remember what happened to you. When you get home at night, when you strip to change, or shower, when you want to sleep with someone...you never get over it.

...and if someone is ever raping someone else (other than me), and I catch them, then I WILL kill them. I can forgive some evils to myself, but to someone else...yeah, if someone's willing to rape one person, then they're willing to rape more people, to VIOLATE more people's fundamental right; the right to feel safe in their own skin. If even your skin, even your own body, isn't yours anymore (having been "claimed" by the rapist), then that is truly messed up, and people that rape others have no redeeming quality to fall back on. They deserve death, either a slow, painful, torturous one, or, if the victim decides to show mercy, a quick one. They have no more right to life, they lost that right when they decided to violate someone else's right to their own body.


Likewise with murderers...


I dunno, I'm always pro-life, and I'm anti-death penalty even (which most pro-gun people are not.) But I'm sorry, if you try raping me, I'm going to hurt you. And if I catch you trying to rape someone else, I'm going to kill you. Your words seem to say that if you're a victim, you should be a good little victim. Struggle a little, help the rapist get off on it, ect. I say what my martial arts instructor tells the girls in the women's self defense stuf: You are NEVER a victim. When you decide you're a victim, you're dead. You are a person, someone is attacking you, and you hurt them to protect yourself. You are NOT a victim and you ARE worth fighting to protect yourself.

I guess that's the biggest difference between Europe and the US. They say we're gun-ho and want to kill people with our guns that we fiercly hold onto. I say it's because we are NOT victims. If people attack us, we WILL fight back...as defenders. Because if a person is willing and able to rape you, if you do NOT stop them, they WILL rape someone else. There are an insane number of statistics that indicate this is true. They get off on it, that's what they want, and if they are not stopped, they will do it again.

Ultimately, the argument isn't even about guns anymore.


Europe has the "victim" mentality. If you're being attacked, try to fight back, but if you can't, just endure it and eventually they'll stop.

The US has the "worth it" mentality. If you're being attacked, you ARE worth defending and by doing the attacking, your attacker has show he/she is NOT, and they have forfited their rights by breaking yours.


If Cho hadn't had a gun, he would have still managed to kill the two people in the dorm simply using knives. 29 other people would still be alive...but that's if he didn't go to the store, buy some chemicals, and make a bomb.


BUT, if someone there had HAD a gun, and had been trained in its use (see Kul's posts on militia and training, you know, like the Swis do), then Cho would have been shot dead before being able to kill those 29 people and injure all the others. Believe it. Evil people like him will cause harm. The only true way to defend against it is to fight back, and you have to be able to. My martial arts is decent, but I can only dodge so many bullets as I'm closing in to defend against a villian.



Oh yeah, and you're semi-right and semi-wrong about something. Gandi was able to use a peaceful protest to bring about change, as was Martain Luthor King Jr. (though he was ultimately assassinated.) But, I don't think peaceful protest stopped Cho from killing anyone, now did it?


The British government/Gandi and US/King Jr. are cases of fighting for change using peaceful protests. Va. Tech and Iraq/9-11/Israel/ect are examples of peaceful protests against EVIL people. Peace doesn't work when someone's just wanting to kill you and then kill themselves, they don't care about peace. Those conflicts CAN only be defended with force. Find an insane person like Cho, give them a gun, and then try and talk peace with them. They'll kill you anyway. And then they'll go and kill more people. Give them a sword and they'll do the same thing, just be less effective.

Guns don't kill people, evil people kill people who don't fight back. That is the way it goes...

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes and the targets are living things.

Except in target practice, which is for improving one's aim for when one is aiming at the real target.

Guns are not designed or manufactured for the purpose of shooting at paper bullseyes or milk bottles. They're made for killing things.

Clearly you don't know much about firearms.

The most common firearm in America is a .22 caliber, pistol, revolver, or rifle, which shoots .22 long-rifle rimfire ammunition. They are made for one purpose: shooting at things for fun. They CAN be used for hunting rabbits, if you're a really good shot; they CAN also be used for shotting prairie dogs, if you're into futility, but they are primarily used for, and manufactured for, shooting at targets, whether those be paper, beer cans, or pictures of your least favorite politician. They are designed for shooting at targets, and mostly used for shooting at targets.

Many guns are designed and manufactured to be looked at, and their value actually decreases if they are ever fired.

A large number of guns are designed for deterrence -- to be easy to hold and point, and obviously be a gun, so that someone intending to do you harm will change his mind and leave.

Numerous guns are designed for competition, and are pretty much useless to most people for anything else.

Most of the rest of guns are designed and manufactured for hunting.

And yes, a substantial subset is designed to do bodily harm to a foe -- but their intent, the reason they are designed and manufactured, is so that no gun will ever be fired.
And it works -- most criminals faced with a gun will run, even if the gun is never fired. Even criminals also armed with a gun will run -- they don't carry it to kill people, or have a shoot-out, but to intimidate; when the victim is also armed, the stakes have been raised, and since intimidation obviously isn't going to work, they go elsewhere.
Guns in vast numbers of situations are like swords of old: worn not for fighting, but for avoiding fighting. They're a statement like the early U.S. flag: "Don't tread on me." They announce, "I'm a person willing to take responsibility for my own fate, by defending myself (and others)."

Designed for killing? Some are, but more are designed for fun, and to keep people safe.

 

[Kulindahr]

I like Thomas Paine's words on the subject. Like him, I wish all guns on earth could be removed from existence, even guns in the military, and of all nations in the world. As I said in my looong post on page 8 (which apparently no one read, sadly...), the fewer guns that exist, the MORE dangerous they become, because they give people even greater power to cause destruction because there's no ballance of power to even the playing field. I know it's long, but if you can, read it. You seem like an intelligent person and I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Thomas, btw, was around the time of the Founding Fathers and wrote Common Sense (among other pamphlets.) His conclusion is the same as my own; if you CAN get rid of all guns on the face of the Earth and see to it that no more are ever made...and by guns, I mean ALL weapons of war of the modern era, guns, missiles, tanks, fighter jets, ect. Maybe even as far as bows and arrows and swords and spears...though those (especially spears) would be even MORE impossible to totally get rid of, simply because individuals can make them. But yes, IF yo can get rid of EVERY LAST ONE, then do it. But if you can't, if even ONE remains, then I want the freedom to have it, because I AM a good person and only use what "power" I have to help, mend, and defend, because that is my nature.

Good words.
I'm annoyed... I read and responded to your long post -- but there's no sign of the post! I'm wondering if it went to never-never land over this crappy wireless connection.

This I have to break. Hard.

If someone is raping me, I'm going to hurt them...bad. They forfited their "ultimate freedom", their right to life, by violating my body. If they survive the encounter, it will be simply because my own mercy kicked in before I finished them off. THEY are evil, and by that evil, by that violation of the first, last, and most fundamental freedom, MY right of life and MY right of my own body, by them violating that, they have no more rights. And I say this after having thought about it a lot. Some people who have been raped say they would rather have been killed or even tortured, and some kill themselves. Why? Having someone truly violate your body you never get over, because unlike your house, your stuff, your land...things that you can replace and get over, you can't replace your body, you're stuck with it for the rest of your life, and for the rest of your life, you'll remember what happened to you. When you get home at night, when you strip to change, or shower, when you want to sleep with someone...you never get over it.

...and if someone is ever raping someone else (other than me), and I catch them, then I WILL kill them. I can forgive some evils to myself, but to someone else...yeah, if someone's willing to rape one person, then they're willing to rape more people, to VIOLATE more people's fundamental right; the right to feel safe in their own skin. If even your skin, even your own body, isn't yours anymore (having been "claimed" by the rapist), then that is truly messed up, and people that rape others have no redeeming quality to fall back on. They deserve death, either a slow, painful, torturous one, or, if the victim decides to show mercy, a quick one. They have no more right to life, they lost that right when they decided to violate someone else's right to their own body.


Likewise with murderers...

This all follows from the basic principle of civilization, the foundation of the only real social contract: You own yourself. A rapist is claiming to own you; so with someone assaulting you, etc.

I dunno, I'm always pro-life, and I'm anti-death penalty even (which most pro-gun people are not.)

I'm pro-"death penalty" -- I believe it should be enacted by the victim of violence at the time of the crime.

I guess that's the biggest difference between Europe and the US. They say we're gun-ho and want to kill people with our guns that we fiercely hold onto. I say it's because we are NOT victims. If people attack us, we WILL fight back...as defenders. Because if a person is willing and able to rape you, if you do NOT stop them, they WILL rape someone else. There are an insane number of statistics that indicate this is true. They get off on it, that's what they want, and if they are not stopped, they will do it again.

Ultimately, the argument isn't even about guns anymore.

Europe has the "victim" mentality. If you're being attacked, try to fight back, but if you can't, just endure it and eventually they'll stop.

The US has the "worth it" mentality. If you're being attacked, you ARE worth defending and by doing the attacking, your attacker has show he/she is NOT, and they have forefited their rights by breaking yours.

Definitely. The U.S. Navy was born in truth over an issue where Europe preferred to play victim: the Barbary pirates. A U.S. president decided we weren't going to just bend over, so we built a fleet and kicked some ass.
That's standing up for human dignity -- if you're worth something as a human, you don't just ned over and cooperate!

Oh yeah, and you're semi-right and semi-wrong about something. Gandi was able to use a peaceful protest to bring about change, as was Martain Luthor King Jr. (though he was ultimately assassinated.) But, I don't think peaceful protest stopped Cho from killing anyone, now did it?

The British government/Gandi and US/King Jr. are cases of fighting for change using peaceful protests. Va. Tech and Iraq/9-11/Israel/ect are examples of peaceful protests against EVIL people. Peace doesn't work when someone's just wanting to kill you and then kill themselves, they don't care about peace. Those conflicts CAN only be defended with force. Find an insane person like Cho, give them a gun, and then try and talk peace with them. They'll kill you anyway. And then they'll go and kill more people. Give them a sword and they'll do the same thing, just be less effective.

Guns don't kill people, evil people kill people who don't fight back. That is the way it goes...

Quite right. That's why I put in the qualifier about peaceful change -- it only works against someone not willing to just go ahead and kill people.

 

[NickCole]

Clearly you don't know much about firearms.

The most common firearm in America is a .22 caliber, pistol, revolver, or rifle, which shoots .22 long-rifle rimfire ammunition. They are made for one purpose: shooting at things for fun. They CAN be used for hunting rabbits, if you're a really good shot; they CAN also be used for shotting prairie dogs, if you're into futility, but they are primarily used for, and manufactured for, shooting at targets, whether those be paper, beer cans, or pictures of your least favorite politician. They are designed for shooting at targets, and mostly used for shooting at targets.

Many guns are designed and manufactured to be looked at, and their value actually decreases if they are ever fired.

A large number of guns are designed for deterrence -- to be easy to hold and point, and obviously be a gun, so that someone intending to do you harm will change his mind and leave.

Numerous guns are designed for competition, and are pretty much useless to most people for anything else.

Most of the rest of guns are designed and manufactured for hunting.

And yes, a substantial subset is designed to do bodily harm to a foe -- but their intent, the reason they are designed and manufactured, is so that no gun will ever be fired.
And it works -- most criminals faced with a gun will run, even if the gun is never fired. Even criminals also armed with a gun will run -- they don't carry it to kill people, or have a shoot-out, but to intimidate; when the victim is also armed, the stakes have been raised, and since intimidation obviously isn't going to work, they go elsewhere.
Guns in vast numbers of situations are like swords of old: worn not for fighting, but for avoiding fighting. They're a statement like the early U.S. flag: "Don't tread on me." They announce, "I'm a person willing to take responsibility for my own fate, by defending myself (and others)."

Designed for killing? Some are, but more are designed for fun, and to keep people safe.

Nonsense.

I really only have one thing to say in response because no matter how you spin the bull the simple truth outweighs all your pages of shit:

Guns are made for killing.

 

[divcurl0]

Kulindahr, I agree with the statement that it is okay to kill "someone who has kicked in your door and is carrying a knife..." but it does not follow that I must also agree that it is okay to kill someone who "hops the back fence and is peering in the windows".

Your position baffles me. In essence, you are maintaining that if Islamic extremists were to flood Europe, no one should bother them until they actually start shooting. But then it would be too late!

You've replaced one silly statment with another. Lets do the whole spiel again: You make it sound like a territorial war between two armies on a battefield. how would these 'islamic extremists' come to the UK, by plane? By boat? So they leave the airport and I happen to be there. Why would I shoot them if they're just standing there with their luggage in tow, I don't even know them. Should I shoot them because they the look "Muslim"?

While it is your right to be so pacifist, to insist that a whole society should be is to invite, even beg for, that society's annihilation at the hands of those without your scruples.

Humanity as a whole is on the verge of being annihilated. WMDs are all over the place, and thanks to countries like the US, they are being proliferated in a massive arms race. If *every* country gets rid of their nuclear weapons, the threat of extinction of the human race would virtually dissappear. Analogously, if everyone got rid of their guns, there would no longer be this hairtrigger alert mentality; people wouldn't be as beligerent and there wouldn't be as many gun deaths.

Prohibiting guns would not have stopped the V. Tech murderer -- even the best experts in security say that.

OK, there's one easy way to crudely test this - just look at other countries who've prohibited guns and see if tehy've experience V. Techs in their recent past. I think you will find most of these countries have not. If what the experts say is right, then it must point to a deeper rooted problem relating to the social fabric of the US, which I have attempted to explain in my ealier posts. In anycase, the question is not about incidents like V Tech, but about the cumulative number of deaths resulting from gun laws and whether they're 'worth it'. Again, if you compare this with UK figures, we have a miniscule fraction of gun related deaths.

...Unless, of course, you want to impose such tyranny as the world has never seen, banning not only the items themselves, but
the technology needed to make them, the information about them... and that could be called "Welcome to the fifteenth century".

Look, banning is not all about preventing people from doing something, its also about sending the message that "this is wrong". It will reduce the number of reckless people who feel the need to use guns when the really don't. I remember when I was a kid, my mother noticed some guy who'd jumped over the fence into our back garden (a trespasser). All she did was shout at the person, and he ran away. Why can't people just be tough like that?

A final thought: WRT the social contract, I said the "true social contract". The only social contract with any actual validity is the truth "You own yourself" and its obvious corollary that this applies to every person. The moment an individual demonstrates that he does not agree, that he believes he has ownership over others -- which any act of aggression by invasion accomplishes -- he has forfeited his standing under that contract, and I have the right to defend myself as I please. Maintaining otherwise is to deny the dignity of the human person by insisting that every individual is subject to ownership by the predatory.

The 'state of nature' does indeed have predators but that's why you can have things called 'laws' which disincentivise these predators from acting on their instincts - if you just look across the pond, you'll see they work quite well.

Your paradigm (the current paradigm) brings out the worst in human nature: it pits man against man; it is one in which you don't have the right to live and if you can't make ends meet you will die and no one should care. It creates a selfish society which makes people act irrationally. There is a biological basis for the existence of altruism and your "you own yourself" thinking forces people to repress that.

A final thought: Would you shoot dead a peniless woman who has resorted to tresspassing, only to 'steal' food from your house, to feed her kids?

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense.

I really only have one thing to say in response because no matter how you spin the bull the simple truth outweighs all your pages of shit:

Guns are made for killing.

Nonsense.
I know you don't like the facts in this matter, but that's just not true.

Maybe if you said, "Guns were invented for killing", you'd be close to the truth.

 

[Kulindahr]

You've replaced one silly statment with another. Lets do the whole spiel again: You make it sound like a territorial war between two armies on a battefield. how would these 'islamic extremists' come to the UK, by plane? By boat? So they leave the airport and I happen to be there. Why would I shoot them if they're just standing there with their luggage in tow, I don't even know them. Should I shoot them because they the look "Muslim"?

No, what you would in fact do is absolutely nothing until they pull out their weapons and shoot people like sheep. In a free and civilized country, people at that point would take cover, pull out their own weapons, and attempt to stop the scum.

Humanity as a whole is on the verge of being annihilated. WMDs are all over the place, and thanks to countries like the US, they are being proliferated in a massive arms race. If *every* country gets rid of their nuclear weapons, the threat of extinction of the human race would virtually dissappear. Analogously, if everyone got rid of their guns, there would no longer be this hairtrigger alert mentality; people wouldn't be as beligerent and there wouldn't be as many gun deaths.

Don't be ridiculous -- the U.S. has done more to eliminate WMDs than all of Europe combined -- and you can throw in a few other continents, too. Here's a hint: Ronald Reagan.
And if every country got rid of their nuclear weapons... at least one of them would be lying.
Guns do not cause belligerence, any more than dessert causes hunger.

OK, there's one easy way to crudely test this - just look at other countries who've prohibited guns and see if tehy've experience V. Techs in their recent past. I think you will find most of these countries have not. If what the experts say is right, then it must point to a deeper rooted problem relating to the social fabric of the US, which I have attempted to explain in my ealier posts. In anycase, the question is not about incidents like V Tech, but about the cumulative number of deaths resulting from gun laws and whether they're 'worth it'. Again, if you compare this with UK figures, we have a miniscule fraction of gun related deaths.

No, the better way to test it is to look at just where people go, to do their slaughter: gun-free zones.
Not a single gun law in the U.S. has even made it harder for a criminal to use a gun -- and in fact, gun control laws have caused deaths, because they encourage criminals.
As for the U.K., the figures I see show that gun violence there is rising -- which only stands to reason, since you throw people in prison for defending themselves and their property.

Look, banning is not all about preventing people from doing something, its also about sending the message that "this is wrong". It will reduce the number of reckless people who feel the need to use guns when the really don't. I remember when I was a kid, my mother noticed some guy who'd jumped over the fence into our back garden (a trespasser). All she did was shout at the person, and he ran away. Why can't people just be tough like that?

Yes, banning guns sends the message "It's wrong to stand up for yourself. It's wrong to be self-reliant. It's wrong to be prepared to defend the weak and helpless."
And those reckless people will still be reckless, and will use something else.
What would she have done if the trespasser had been carrying a knife and been intent on hurting someone? Called the police... and died.

The 'state of nature' does indeed have predators but that's why you can have things called 'laws' which disincentivise these predators from acting on their instincts - if you just look across the pond, you'll see they work quite well.

Laws only change the economics of the situation. And the economics of the situation dictate that the man with the gun has the edge -- so criminals will have guns. Do you know which place in the U.S. has had the gun laws most like those "across the pond"? It's called Washington, D.C., and it has been the "murder capital" of the country most years as long as I can remember.

Your paradigm (the current paradigm) brings out the worst in human nature: it pits man against man; it is one in which you don't have the right to live and if you can't make ends meet you will die and no one should care. It creates a selfish society which makes people act irrationally. There is a biological basis for the existence of altruism and your "you own yourself" thinking forces people to repress that.

My paradigm says that every person should be treated with respect; yours says they should be treated like sheep. Mine says a person can defend his life; yours says he shouldn't be allowed the means to do so.
This is so wrong I almost didn't dignify it with a response: "...it is one in which...if you can't make ends meet you will die and no one should care." That's demonstrably false. People in the U.S. were more generous, more caring, more willing to help others, before all the statist, authoritarian socialist laws which Europe loves were put in place. People who believe the truth that they own themselves are the most generous of all -- those who believe they're the property of someone else just say, "Let someone else do it."
"You own yourself" is the basis of responsible behavior, and of mental health for that matter. It represses nothing, but enables everything. Any system where you aren't permitted to exercise your self-ownership is like one where Somalia, Argentina, Kenya, Iran, and a few others were allowed to run U.K. foreign policy.

A final thought: Would you shoot dead a peniless woman who has resorted to tresspassing, only to 'steal' food from your house, to feed her kids?

That depends: did she break in?
If not, if I found her picking vegetables in my garden without permission, I'd question her, probably while armed, to find out just what the crap she thought she was doing, and why she was disrespecting me and my family. Once I learned what her situation was, and verified it, and made sure she understood the disrespect, I'd call the church and we'd see what we could do for the family, and call the Pink Pistols, to go see if a work party at her house would help them (assuming she had a house).
In other words, I'd call people who believe the truth "you own yourself", knowing that they're the most likely to respond. I would definitely not call any liberals I know who don't like guns, because of all the people I've ever met, they're the least likely to give a dime, because they believe in letting the government do it.

Note that Americans are regularly judged the most generous people in the world. Note also that as the anti-self-ownership culture has increased here, giving has gone down. Repression of the free exercise of self-ownership stifles generosity and lets people care only about themselves.