Va. Tech Shooting

[69Strat]

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.

While the introduction of a jury has merit in a post-shooting scenario, it has little bearing to what is at issue. The issues are: you contend that deadly force is limited to protecting life itself, and my countering that there are exceptions to that rule, as it applies to property.

Therefore, I must ask, is it not a Brinks guard's primary mission and duty to protect the property they transport?

And, in protecting such property, would it not also presume that such guard would be placed in dangerous situations whereby they might have to use deadly force in order to discharge such duty, within the scope of employment?

In addition to my Brinks guard argument, there are other exceptions where the use of deadly force would be permitted in defending property:

Under New York Penal Law, Section 35.20

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

It would appear that under New York law an armed guard could use deadly force to stop a burglar from removing money and valuables in a dwelling or occupied building, during the course of his employment.

See: http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.20_35.20.html

ADDED:

BTW, I think we are in general agreement about what would transpire following a post-shooting incident.

 

[divcurl0]

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..

Aaah so we just just mow down anyone sporting a beard, or people of the wrong skin colour. And you call this civilised?

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..

Off the top of my head:

-Bush signed a nuclear deal with India, taking a 'realpolitik' stand by saying that he was appealing to what he perceives to be the realities on the ground. This has caused an arms race in that region.

-I remember reading that Bush actually openly declared that he no longer supports parts of the NPT.

-John Bolton opposed a move by the UN to create NGOs investigating illegal black market arms trade (for reasons that America would have a lot to loose economically from such transparency. I will try and find news articles backing these up.

America has a war driven economy. And that is sick.

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.

Yes, there has been a recent spate of gun related deaths, but it is still tiny compared to that of America. High gun crime in Washington DC? The solution would be to federally ban guns; the last time I checked the different 'states' were not separated by physical boundaries.

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.

more like it is wrong "to use your gun whenever you feel like it".

What would she have done if the trespasser had been carrying a knife and been intent on hurting someone? Called the police... and died.

If you look at the UK, you will find that it is very rare for a death to result from a burglary.

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.

Mine says the individual shouldn't be over-empowered. An over-empowered person is a tyrant. The community should. There would be far fewer predators in a tightly knit community in which people have a sense of belonging, and people would so bloody scared of everything.

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.

That is simply untrue. one example: Just take Barbara Bush's comments followed Hurricane Katrina. She said that the people stranded in the Astrodome arena were "better off" because "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway". To me, as a liberal, commie, fag, European, I was astonished at how heartless one could be. Then I realised it is not her per se, but the prevailing culture which allows to her to say things like that, unflinchingly.

Ofcourse, the concept of private charity is all well and good, but its simply not sustainable, and it is also fallable. Given the wealth of the US, its amazing how so many of your fellow citizens are living in squalid conditions, way below the poverty line.

Also a point about churches. There are churches in America that are very compassionate - they help clothe and feed the poor, but would they welcome a 'faggot' or tranvestite in with open arms?

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.

I would disagree. When you are drilled with the mantra that you should only look out for number one, the plight of those in real need can be safely ignored under such a paradigm - you become densensitised to human suffering. Did you know about the recent Earthquake in Kashmir which killed 80,000 people? Do they ever show (on whatever media outlet you can think of) the extreme poverty people face in Sudan, even extremely sanitised clips, ever? Do they show how American corporations put a price tag on water and made many die of thirst in Bolivia? The fact of the matter is that the goverment is miser and that the people are indifferent (not because there's something wrong with them, but because of the prevailing culture)

 

[opinterph]

The issues are: you contend that deadly force is limited to protecting life itself, and my countering that there are exceptions to that rule, as it applies to property.

It’s probably a very good idea to restate the issues at this time in order to help ensure that we continue to understand each other’s position. Your statement is essentially correct; however, I have included several “qualifiers” in my contention to allow for what I recognize may realistically be “exceptions.”

(Well, a portion of the time):

Red = Qualified Statement
Blue = Absolute Statement​

With respect to the use of firearms (or other weapons) as a means of causing lethal injury to other persons, the legal basis for doing so (within the context of a normally functioning society,) is generally limited to the protection of life itself – not property, (such as a laptop or tv.)

[With regard to] an “armed guard,” ... The use of deadly force is restricted to situations involving life-threatening circumstances.

It doesn’t matter what kinda cargo you are “protecting,” the rules are the same. It is never … proper to initiate lethal force to subdue an adversary unless the subject-entity represents a reasonably obvious threat to your own life or the life of others.

The use of deadly force is generally unacceptable as a means to protect property. State law varies considerably on this issue

--- ooo OOO 0000 OOO ooo ---​

Is it not a Brinks guard's primary mission and duty to protect the property they transport?

Yes.​

They also protect the individuals handling the property at point of hand-off as well as the bank/store customers, pedestrians, or other bystanders who may be in the vicinity.

Would it not also presume that such guard would be placed in dangerous situations whereby they might have to use deadly force in order to discharge such duty, within the scope of employment?

Absolutely.​

It is this propensity to encounter “dangerous situations” which creates the urgent requirement for armed guards to be properly trained and respond appropriately.

The justification for armed guards to use deadly force to protect property is ultimately subject to the laws of each respective state. It may be true that one or several states have enacted laws that enable citizens (or guards) to use deadly force to protect property. However, I contend that in a “general” sense, this is NOT the case. I also realize that laws are subject to change …

Florida's [STRIKE]New[/STRIKE] "Stand Your Ground" Law: Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas

(It is perhaps notable that deadly force is much more likely to be “justified” in cases of home invasion.)

In addition to my Brinks guard argument, there are other exceptions where the use of deadly force would be permitted in defending property:

Under New York Penal Law, Section 35.20

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

It would appear that under New York law an armed guard could use deadly force to stop a burglar from removing money and valuables in a dwelling or occupied building, during the course of his employment.

See: http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.20_35.20.html
.

You are correct. New York permits the use of deadly force to terminate a burglary. It also appears that the justification extends to ordinary citizens. Keep in mind that this is an exception for a specific crime and that it is unique (under this statue) to one state.

^ … it appears that the standards for the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, limiting their discretion to use deadly force in the prevention of crime to cases of life-threatening felonies, are required by the Fourth Amendment; to use deadly force to prevent a felony that does not threaten life would be disproportionate to the crime and an unreasonable seizure of the person. The powers of private persons to use deadly force, however, not being controlled by the Fourth Amendment, may be more expansive than the powers of law enforcement officers.

New York Penal Law

Section 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally

The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization.

Section 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

 

[NickCole]

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

Really?

So guns are made for fun and games?

The guns that make it possible for a guy to kill 32 students at VT and 12 students at Columbine, and tens of thousands of people every year in the United States?

You know what?

It's time for you grown men who never matured past little boy to find yourselves some different toys. Because guns are not good toys. They're good for killing.

 

[divcurl0]

Radical Matt, I understand what you are saying about there being a 'power gap' and your conclusion which follows. Kulindahr made pretty much the same observation:

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

Kulindahr and I defined 'power' to be the ultimate power - the power to kill people in a flash. You are right, there are heroic people who don't abuse their power but it is known that most people do. A person who abuses their power is a tyrant. Now, the tyrant isn't just some crazed psychopath, it is also your trigger happy gun owner, who tends to kill when some does so much as to pluck a flower from his flower bed.

We all agree that the disparity in 'power' between people is what causes insecurity in people . Surely to eliminate this disparity in an egalitarian way, its more practical to ban guns altogether than ensure everyone has guns. If you think not, would you force everyone to possess a gun?

As regards the rape victim, and your point about the right to feel safe: the rape example is a stupid one if you give it a moment's thought. A rapist has control over your body so its very unlikely you'd be able to kill him, does that not stand to reason? If something is so improbable, its waste of time speculating over what you should or should not do in that hypothetical situation.

Now, should you kill the rapist after he's raped you? This is irrelavent in this discussion, but to go into quickly: ofcourse the act of rape does leave deep psychological scars, but you still have your freedom of the will intact after the rape (by the very fact you feel angry at what happened to you). To kill him would be an act of *revenge*, but *justice* is better served throwing him away to rot in a prison.

What about Kulindahr's asseration that you should pre-emptivly act against a someone who you think's gonna rape you? We are in agreement that right to feel safe is paramount, but I would suggest that if such an attitude became the norm, society would become a jungle.

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.

You are confusing two separate issues. Ofcourse there are Cho's out there; these are mentally ill people, psychopaths without the ability to feel any remorse ('evil' if you will). There is no point trying to understand why psychopaths; they can't help wanting to kill you ("its in their genes"). It is easy to label people with legitimate grievances as psychopaths, but not very wise.

Just take the Israeli-Palestian conflict, as it was one of your examples: if you look the facts, you will find that Israel is commiting the most horrific human rights abuses in the West Bank which it illegally occupies; the conflict is a posterchild of the concept of "Asymettric Warfare", in which the weaker party is to all intents and purposes miltarily powerless and must continue to be oppressed and "live like dogs" (in the words of a prominent Israeli politician). Palestians feel as though the only *constructive* thing they can do is sacrifice themselves - to suggest they are deranged psychopaths, is to bury your head under the sand.

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.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, I have always maintained that. When someone's an imminent threat to the lives of your citizens, you should take them out. That's the whole point of a goverment.

But its funny how the US needs to go into other countries to "defend" themselves. You can never 'win' against people you've wronged; people who've suffered in the most unimaginable of ways in the name your "self defence", don't forget.

We in Europe had this colonial mentality that security is acheived through conquest, and it is no different to what you have now. We've now realised that injustice is simply not sustainable in this day and age, and our past actions are haunting us to this very day. The US would do well to draw on our hindsight.

 

[divcurl0]

Is that retarded amalgam of stereotypes really what Americans are perceived as in the UK?

Funny that. our sense of humour seems to be transposed. I so happen to be very offended by your use of the word 'retarded', a term used to describe those with learning difficulties, in a derogatory manner.

Yeah, SCOTUS does that when it considers the Constitution as "living."

"SCOTUS"? I don't get it.

Thanks for that absolutist moralist nonsense.

wow, that sure is a generic excuse for appaling crimes if I've ever seen one.

Not that you are offering any assistance to solving America's problems... by the look of that retarded amalgam of stereotypes I doubt you are remotely close to ever helping.

Hey, I'm doing the good folk of America a favour, I'm offering my time as as social critic, you know, the people you are meant to have in a functioning democracy?

 

[_AJ_]

gotta love american logic

ummm how do we stop people from shooting people

i know shoot them


to do nothing is the easy option so that is what the lazy american government will do nothing sometimes you need to make the hard choice for the greater good but no one in the USA has the balls to.

There will continue to be shooting after shooting

 

[Kulindahr]

Was it really a semi-automatic assault rifle and does that really matter?

I don't know where this silliness started, but I suspect it was with an anti-gun authoritarian -- it was definitely with a U.S. politician.
From my courses in firearms, I can say that there's no such critter as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". Assault rifles are fully automatic, with settings for a small set of rounds (3 is common) or single shot. A semi-automatic fires one round per pull of the trigger, just like a bolt-action or lever-action.
In other words, an assault rifle is either a light machine gun or submachine gun. They are the successors to battle rifles, which had either bolt action or semi-automatic action, as the primary infantry weapon.

 

[radical matt]

Quoted from where I put it later in the post, to make sure it isn't lost in the body of the message:

--You don't just shoot random people, you only shoot/fight people that you feel are planing to endanger you. As I said before about my dad, we who have guns don't always even carry them when we SHOULD. The LAST thing we want is to have to shoot people, because we also realize how much this will hurt us, our very spirits and souls, for we'll have to live the rest of our lives knowing we took a human life. That's the LAST thing we want to do, not the FIRST. This is the first and foremost thing that you need to understand. In fact, I think it's so important I'm gonna put it up at the top of this post too, just to make sure it isn't missed...--

Kulindahr and I defined 'power' to be the ultimate power - the power to kill people in a flash. You are right, there are heroic people who don't abuse their power but it is known that most people do. A person who abuses their power is a tyrant. Now, the tyrant isn't just some crazed psychopath, it is also your trigger happy gun owner, who tends to kill when some does so much as to pluck a flower from his flower bed.

...and HERE is where I think you don't understand Americans. As Kulindahr said, MOST American gun owners would not attack someone who's just in their yard, especially in full daylight where they can see that a person is unarmed and likely not meaning any harm. My dad owns several rifles (and mine is at my parents' house since I'm not supposed to have weapons, even "martial arts" weapons, in my on campus apartment.) There are people that walk by on the street or walk dogs through my parents' yard, and my dad just goes out and chats with them if the seem to be alright. If they seem to be acting suspiciously, he calls the police and asks them to send a car by. I have NEVER once seen him go out with a gun when he talks to these people. If they were intent on harming him, they could just shoot him while he's walking up to talk!

...BUT, he has them, and he made sure when I was about 15 years old (strong enough and smart enough to be trusted to handle a gun responsibly, though he had me shooting a bb gun when I was like 10 ^_^) that I knew how to load, aim, and shoot them, and that I knew where the one he keeps loaded behind his and my mom's bedroom door was. He said if someone ever BREAKS IN at night and he's at work, I would be to use it to defend myself and my mom. When I was 18 and started college, he let me put my .22 rifle (unloaded) behind my door in my room, again, for the same purpose.

...and it never has happened. I've never had to shoot at anything other than targets at my grandparent's land out in the country that we'd tape or set on hay bails. I'm a pacifist and a person that believes in the inate value and goodness of all life. I won't even shoot animals (though if I saw a poisonous snake, I probably would shoot that, since it'd have seen me... ^_^) and have flirted with vegitarianism because I'd rather not an animal have to die for me to eat.

My point? Gun owners in the States, at least in Texas and in my family and all my friends; we know how to use guns RIGHT, meaning we don't use them. We shoot inanimate targets, sometimes animals that could cause harm, but not people. This is the right way to use a gun. They're still there, behind my parents' bedroom door, and behind the door of my room at their house. And they go unused. It is truly my wish that they never have to be used. THAT is also the RIGHT way to use a gun. It's like the martial arts. You train so that you never have to use it, that you're good enough that you both are aware of your surroundings (and avoid fights/entanglements) and that you can quickly look intimidating if a situation arises so that the would-be attacker will back down. Guns, martial arts...it's really all the same. They're meant for defense and for health, they give you something to do as sport, and they are designed such that you NEVER have to use them, but if the unlikely happens, and you do have to use them, that you can defend yourself and others.


So basically, your view seems to be of every American either being like Cho (who was not originally an American) or some cowboys that get off on shooting their guns with any excuse they can get. What you need to understand is, a VAST majority are NOT like that at all. And some, such as myself, don't even like shooting at targets (I just do it from time to time to make sure my aim is adequate in case I ever need it.) They're loud, clumsy, and brutish, not my fighting type at all (my own being a blend of tactics, speed, and finess), and worst of all, they make it far too easy to hurt and kill people.

...but I understand that it's impossible to get rid of all guns on the planet; for worse (there isn't a better...) they're here to stay. And that means, just like Thomas Paine said of himself, I need to have one myself, because I AM a good person (a "heroic" person? Not sure I'd call myself a "hero", but...), and I will only use them if I must for the wellbeing of the innocent. I would rather they just not exist, then my martial arts training would be all that I need to defend the weak and innocent, but they do exist. They're here to stay. And you have to understand, the US can get rid of all it's guns, even our police and military, and guns would still exist on this planet because neither you, nor anyone else, will be able to convince the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, ect. ect. to get rid of theirs. So even with us getting rid of ours, they'll just be smuggled up through Mexico (since we don't have a wall to stop it) or through Canada (again, no wall), and then criminal will buy them (because good, law abiding citizens will not be wanting to break the law), and then these evil people will pray upon the good, who will have no way to defend themselves.

PLEASE understand, IF you could get rid of all guns on the planet, I am TOTALLY in favor of that. But you cannot do this. The US and our laws aren't the problem, because even if we get rid of them, other countries will not. Even the UK would think twice before disposing of all the guns, tanks, and aircraft in their (your? Are you in the UK?) military, right? Even in this nation that is so anti-gun and gun control, they still have guns that they employ, and they won't get rid of them, correct? So already, even in the UK, your initiative to rid the world of guns has failed. How much moreso, will it fail in the US? And how much more than that in totalitarian regimes such as Iran, Cuba, or North Korea?

We all agree that the disparity in 'power' between people is what causes insecurity in people . Surely to eliminate this disparity in an egalitarian way, its more practical to ban guns altogether than ensure everyone has guns. If you think not, would you force everyone to possess a gun?

I'm sorry, but I don't know the word egalitarian... ^_^;

Well, here's what you're not understanding. BAN guns does not equal RID THE WORLD of guns. As long as ANY guns exist in the world, this power disparity will exist. This includes, once again, the militaries of nations. How likely do you see it that the UK will voulentarily unarm their military? And once they have no arms, may as well disband it. Do you forsee the UK retiring guns from their military, retiring all their aircraft, and retireing their naval fleet ANY time in the near future? While I admire your innocence and purity in believing that (if you truly believe that), I must tell you that most people on this earth are not so pure, and, regretfully, also must inform you that this will NEVER occur (well, least not in the forseeable future, the next 100-200 years...after that, who knows.)

As regards the rape victim, and your point about the right to feel safe: the rape example is a stupid one if you give it a moment's thought. A rapist has control over your body so its very unlikely you'd be able to kill him, does that not stand to reason? If something is so improbable, its waste of time speculating over what you should or should not do in that hypothetical situation.

Again, I believe you misunderstand me. As my martial arts instructor tells the women in the women's self defense stuff, they can fight. Maybe it's waiting until the guy starts undressing and then they gouge his eyes, or grab and squeeze his balls (you'd be surprised how QUICKLY this turns the tables. ^_^) But see, with the martial arts approach, you have to wait until the person is ready to do the act of raping, which means you've likely already been forced to strip naked (making an escape more difficult), and they're moving in to do the deed. When they get in arms reach or start the actual sex, it's kinda hard for them to keep a gun to your head.

...BUT, if you, as the potential victim, have a gun, then you pull it out and point it at them. Now, faced with a good probability of being shot THEMSELVES, the rapist will suddenly second think the situation and try to think of an option that allows them to get out of it alive. In FACT, the VICTIM pulling out a gun is the LAST thing the rapist was expecting. In those few seconds of shock, the potential victim can get a shot off, preventing the rape before it happens. FURTHER, if the victim has been well trained in the use of guns, they can aime for the legs (thighs) or shoulders so as to incapacitate the rapist without necessarily killing them.

Now, should you kill the rapist after he's raped you? This is irrelavent in this discussion, but to go into quickly: ofcourse the act of rape does leave deep psychological scars, but you still have your freedom of the will intact after the rape (by the very fact you feel angry at what happened to you). To kill him would be an act of *revenge*, but *justice* is better served throwing him away to rot in a prison.

Actually, justice would better be served by ME raping HIM/her back. An eye for an eye and a rape for a rape. But once again, they've given up their rights by attempting to rape me. They no longer have the right to life and it would only be by compassion on the part of the victim that the rapist should be allowed to even live. Justice is NEVER served by people rotting in prison. THAT is revenge, but it's not even good revenge, since it's the state, not the victim, that is getting revenge on the criminal, and it's not a fair "eye for an eye" revenge at that.

What about Kulindahr's asseration that you should pre-emptivly act against a someone who you think's gonna rape you? We are in agreement that right to feel safe is paramount, but I would suggest that if such an attitude became the norm, society would become a jungle.

Not really. There is what they call in law a reasonable concern. If you see a little old lady in a walker coming up to you, you aren't going to shoot her (or for the martial artists out there, you aren't going to kick her in the face), because you know she isn't a threat. On the other hand, if a person comes up to you fast pointing a gun at you (or a finger in their pocket) and tells you to come with them (and has no badge or anything to indicate being police or whatnot) or tells you to start stripping or to lay down on a bed and let them tie you to it, ect. Well, see this indicates that they are planning to do something bad to you. This gives you a reason to perk up the Spidy-sense and realize that this person is intent on doing you harm.

You don't just shoot random people, you only shoot/fight people that you feel are planing to endanger you. As I said before about my dad, we who have guns don't always even carry them when we SHOULD. The LAST thing we want is to have to shoot people, because we also realize how much this will hurt us, our very spirits and souls, for we'll have to live the rest of our lives knowing we took a human life. That's the LAST thing we want to do, not the FIRST. This is the first and foremost thing that you need to understand. In fact, I think it's so important I'm gonna put it up at the top of this post too, just to make sure it isn't missed...

You are confusing two separate issues. Ofcourse there are Cho's out there; these are mentally ill people, psychopaths without the ability to feel any remorse ('evil' if you will). There is no point trying to understand why psychopaths; they can't help wanting to kill you ("its in their genes"). It is easy to label people with legitimate grievances as psychopaths, but not very wise.

Just take the Israeli-Palestian conflict, as it was one of your examples: if you look the facts, you will find that Israel is commiting the most horrific human rights abuses in the West Bank which it illegally occupies; the conflict is a posterchild of the concept of "Asymettric Warfare", in which the weaker party is to all intents and purposes miltarily powerless and must continue to be oppressed and "live like dogs" (in the words of a prominent Israeli politician). Palestians feel as though the only *constructive* thing they can do is sacrifice themselves - to suggest they are deranged psychopaths, is to bury your head under the sand.

But stop and think for a moment, if the Palestianians were able to defend themselves with guns against the Israeli military, then they couldn't be preyed upon and would have won their freedom long ago, well before reaching the point of dispair that pushes one to the brink where they are so hateful for being oppressed and so hurt and depressed that they will kill themselves as long as they think it will hurt the ones they see as hurting them...not unlike Mr. Cho, as it seems he felt the same way.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, I have always maintained that. When someone's an imminent threat to the lives of your citizens, you should take them out. That's the whole point of a goverment.

Hehe, funny you should say this, I was ACTUALLY thinking about this while showering this afternoon. There is ONE fundamental flaw with this thinking:

Unless 75% or more of your citizens are either in the military or are police officers, there is a good chance that whenever a crime occurs, neither a police officer or a military officer, "the government", will be there to protect you.

If someone breaks into my home to rape me, is there a police officer or army soldier there to stop them and protect me? No, there is not. If the rapist is unarmed, with my knowledge of martial arts, I SHOULD be able to fight them off...but what if they have a gun, or even a knife?

In this situation, where the government, in the person of a police or military officer, is NOT present to defend me, how am I to defend myself against a person with a gun? Answer me that question. The only answer I know is that if -I- also have a gun, I have a fighting chance. Otherwise, I may very well be, quite literally, screwed.

Well, no, I'll wait for them to do it to me and then poke their eyes out and rip their balls off; ANYTHING to stop them, but not everyone has my training.

But its funny how the US needs to go into other countries to "defend" themselves. You can never 'win' against people you've wronged; people who've suffered in the most unimaginable of ways in the name your "self defence", don't forget.

Right, and I'm generally against those actions. Honestly, I'd almost prefer an Isolationist policy, which includes not being part of the UN and having our economy cut off from the global economy. However, in the modern era, this is simply impossible and I understand that. I also understand that nation leaders are humans and are going to make mistakes, either because they're human (and thus falible), or because of some political/economic/power gains that they see the actions will make.

It should also be noted, however, that we give quite freely to many nations across the world; both out government in relief, aid, and supplies to people, and our people, giving from their own wallets, also give to people around the world, people hurt by war and tyranny, as well as people hurt or displaced by natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

We in Europe had this colonial mentality that security is acheived through conquest, and it is no different to what you have now. We've now realised that injustice is simply not sustainable in this day and age, and our past actions are haunting us to this very day. The US would do well to draw on our hindsight.

Ah, but the difference is, the US isn't an imperial nation (despite how people say it is.) If we were, there wouldn't be a civil war in Iraq right now; we simply would have nuked it and then anexed the country as the 51st state.

And again, as I said before, sometimes the only defense is to meet force with force. When you're dealing with other good people, peaceful protest works wonders, because good people WANT peace. They will reason with you and compromise with you, so that you can both live in peace. However, when you deal with evil people, they don't want peace, so you either protest with force, or you die. The mindset in the US is that we will protest with force. The mindset in Europe seems to be that they'll peacefully protest instead...and die...they just leave the "and die" part off, hoping the evil people of this world will forget about it. Sadly, they won't...

 

[Kulindahr]

We all agree that the disparity in 'power' between people is what causes insecurity in people . Surely to eliminate this disparity in an egalitarian way, its more practical to ban guns altogether than ensure everyone has guns. If you think not, would you force everyone to possess a gun?

Banning guns altogether is hardly egalitarian! It takes things back to might makes right -- the bigger, tougher guy will get his way.
And banning guns isn't practical at all. I keep saying this, but no one seems to be paying attention, so here goes again:
A typical high school shop program has what's needed to make a gun -- in fact twenty years ago at the local high school, between wood shop and metal shop, a kid made a hunting rifle that works very well.
I could go on line and order from Sears the tools I need to make a gun -- indeed, to turn out identical copies of guns.
All that banning guns would do would be to create a black market in them, with the accompanying gangs and violence over markets.

As regards the rape victim, and your point about the right to feel safe: the rape example is a stupid one if you give it a moment's thought. A rapist has control over your body so its very unlikely you'd be able to kill him, does that not stand to reason? If something is so improbable, its waste of time speculating over what you should or should not do in that hypothetical situation.

Carrying a gun does in fact enable people to fight off a rapist. I know a gal who did so, and another who reached into her purse and yelled, "I have a gun!' -- and the would-be rapist fled.
In states which have restored the right to concealed carry, violent crime has dropped, but rape has dropped even more, demonstrating the the mere knowledge that a potential victim might be armed (or that an armed person might come to his/her aid) deters a rapist.

Now, should you kill the rapist after he's raped you? This is irrelavent in this discussion, but to go into quickly: ofcourse the act of rape does leave deep psychological scars, but you still have your freedom of the will intact after the rape (by the very fact you feel angry at what happened to you). To kill him would be an act of *revenge*, but *justice* is better served throwing him away to rot in a prison.

Then at the very least you should shoot the rapist so he can't get away. But in the U.S., if you shoot someone and don't kill him, he can sue... a situation that is changing in a number of states thanks to "Castle Doctrine" and "No Retreat" laws, and hopefully will change in Congress.

What about Kulindahr's asseration that you should pre-emptivly act against a someone who you think's gonna rape you? We are in agreement that right to feel safe is paramount, but I would suggest that if such an attitude became the norm, society would become a jungle.

Society wouldn't become a jungle -- it would become very, very polite, as people learned better than to threaten anyone else. A wise man has said that "an armed society is a polite society". I'll bear witness to that: I once stopped with a friend to buy groceries for camping, and was wearing my Ruger .357 on my hip, openly. When I came back out of the store, a group of people were being loud and rowdy, but as I got near they got quiet and the group began to break up. At the car, my friend told me some of them had been pushing and shoving others, and a few punches were thrown, and he'd been wondering if he should call the cops... but then I appeared, they saw my gun, and everything quieted down.
Think about it: just the presence of my visible weapon restored peace to a group of people! I didn't have to intervene; I wasn't even aware of the effect I'd had.

 

[radical matt]

gotta love american logic

ummm how do we stop people from shooting people

i know shoot them

Hey, it works, right? If they're writhing on the ground with a bullet in their shoulder or leg, or if they were shot in the head/hart/throat and are now dead, they aren't going to be shooting people, now are they?

to do nothing is the easy option so that is what the lazy american government will do nothing sometimes you need to make the hard choice for the greater good but no one in the USA has the balls to.

There will continue to be shooting after shooting

Hehe, lazy American government, huh? They're not lazy. Evil, self-important politicians consumed with the lust for their own personal power, yes, but lazy? Not at all.

Hard choice for the greater good? And what is that choice? Should we, the USA, conqure ALL nations and ALL lands of the world, so that we can take ALL their guns (and that includes ALL your guns, wherever you are), then we can get a HUGE smelter and throw ALL the guns, tanks, planes, nukes...every weapon of destruction and death, into it. Then we'll take all the plants that build these weapons and tare them down. Then we'll make it illegal to produce, smuggle, sell, ect. weapons.

...oh, but wait, this is the US being the "world's policeman", right? Unilateral action! And that's bad too, isn't it?

Further, there's another little problem. Suppose someone, somewhere, sets up a plant and makes a few guns. They've broken the law, so we send the police to arrest them...one problem, the police don't have guns, so they get shot. When then mail this person a letter, telling them they are to appear in court for trial...and they, literally, shoot the messenger. We send more people to go and arrest them, and the gun maker kills these people too. In fact, without guns, our one world supergovernment doesn't have the power to enforce the law that bans guns!! Rather interesting, is is not?


Heh, I never thought of that before...that actually IS pretty interesting. Without guns, the government can't even enforce the legal ban on guns! Hm...that's...kinda funny...


And no one in the USA having balls? It takes balls to invade a country across the planet. Perhaps it shows a lacking in brains, but definately shows balls.

 

[Kulindahr]

divcurl0, your arguments are based on twisting words and spinning out things that just aren't there, in your last post (303). I don't know where you got the stereotypes you're using to smear polite, respectful, caring people, but you need to ditch them and learn some reality.

This is getting old.... But I'll try again: it is impossible to ban guns without imposing a more stringent tyranny than ever seen before. Any attempt to ban guns, therefore, would only result in the price going sky-high, with gang warfare over distribution territories.

How does a gun "over-empower" someone? All it does is level the field, so that the law-abiding aren't reduced to sheep. Taking away guns "under-empowers" people, making them designated victims.

Your comments on private charity in the U.S. show a serious ignorance. I'll just repeat this, because it's true:
"...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.

That's just historical fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Matt, you make a good point about not using your gun.
The people I know who have the most guns and do the most shooting are very much like the officers in a missile silo keeping that delivery system for a nuke all ready to go: the one thing in the world they hope will ever happen is that they should use the thing.
And the "You own yourself principle" that endorses gun ownership also established that you don't initiate aggression.

 

[_AJ_]

Hey, it works, right? If they're writhing on the ground with a bullet in their shoulder or leg, or if they were shot in the head/hart/throat and are now dead, they aren't going to be shooting people, now are they?

but what about the 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 people they have already killed are they acceptable deaths?

shouldn't the Aim be that No One dies?

 

[69Strat]

From my courses in firearms, I can say that there's no such critter as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". Assault rifles are fully automatic, with settings for a small set of rounds (3 is common) or single shot. A semi-automatic fires one round per pull of the trigger, just like a bolt-action or lever-action.

Most semi-automatic assault weapons can be converted to fire in full auto mode, so for all intents and purposes, they can be modified to function like assault rifles. A simple fact, that people like you like to leave out.

They are the successors to battle rifles, which had either bolt action or semi-automatic action, as the primary infantry weapon.

Battle rifles were not just in bolt action or semi automatic configuration. The FN C2 in 7.62 NATO used by the Canadian Forces was selectable and could fire in either semi-automatic or full auto. The Brits - and other commonwealth countries - also adopted the proven FN platform during the cold war. The American equivalent of the C2 was the M14 battle rifle, which could also fire in full auto. Both the C1 and M14 were gas operated, with the C1 being selectable, so the gas could be adjusted under harsh field conditions. The M14 was not adjustable.

As usual, you like to talk military shop, but know nothing about it.

 

[69Strat]

So I don't care what you claim about yourself, your actions are more obvious as to your character.

Oh yes, the ad hominem from somebody who has to repeatedly duck a question built around his own argument. How pathetic.

Instead of whining about logical fallacies, consider researching the issues you raise, and perhaps it will avoid your shooting yourself in the future.

 

[69Strat]

The justification for armed guards to use deadly force to protect property is ultimately subject to the laws of each respective state.

Understood.

It may be true that one or several states have enacted laws that enable citizens (or guards) to use deadly force to protect property. However, I contend that in a “general” sense, this is NOT the case.

Hence, why my argument falls under exceptions. Agreed.

You are correct. New York permits the use of deadly force to terminate a burglary. It also appears that the justification extends to ordinary citizens. Keep in mind that this is an exception for a specific crime and that it is unique (under this statue) to one state.

Pennsylvania has also made an exception that provides for the use deadly force to protect property, in which an argument for buglary could be made.

Title 18, Section 507 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:

The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA507.html

Overall, you have raises some valid points and they are well taken.

 

[radical matt]

but what about the 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 people they have already killed are they acceptable deaths?

shouldn't the Aim be that No One dies?

...and herein is where your argument ultimately fails; the person doing the shooting already HAS a gun. And they are going to kill people.

The only way to stop this is to remove ALL guns from existence.

THIS INCLUDES/B] military weapons, nuclear missiles, tanks, bombs, aircraft, missiles, ICBMs, morters, swords, bows, arrows, spears, sticks (which can be sharpened into spears/javailns), stones, darts, knives, forks, spoons (can be used to "scoop" out someone's eye so you can then ram something in the soket to strike the brain directly), pencils (which can be sharpened into darts), hammers, crowbars, wrenches (the foot long, 5 lb ones), anything heavy that could be thrown at someone (bricks, televisions, 2 liter soda bottles which could be filled with sand, video game consoles, BOOKS [dictionaries hurt when someone throws one at you, and they could beat you with it]), ropes, belts, sring, yarn, twine, electrical cables, and all cloth/leather clothing, ect (all of these things can be wrapped around someone's neck and used to choke them to death), baseball bats, golf clubs, powertools, axes, saws, any musical instrument that can be used as a weapon (this being all musical instruments that are light enough to swing/throw...so the Piano is safe, but little else is), and...and.......annnnndd......THE LIST IS UNENDING!

AND FINALLY, you would need to amputate the hands and feet from all Humans in existance so that no one could ever beat up, choke, kick, or kill another person with their hands or feet. And believe me, as a novice martial artist with some knowledge of grappling, there are LOTS of ways that hands and feet can be used, individually or in combination, both by the strong and by the limber, to break another person's arms/legs, or to kill another person.


Until you are able to do all of these things, things which would CRIPPLE society, culture, and Human existance as we know it (if not make it impossible to survive, especially the amputations), then people will be killing other people.

So what's the solution? Empore the innocent, so that when evil people try to prey on them, they can fight back.


The ONLY way to stop Humans killing other Humans is to kill all of us, or render us incapable of combat (by confiscating everything we own and amputating our limbs), because as long as people exist, there will be some dastards out there that will want to hurt other people. There simply is not a way to stop this yet. And they will use WHATEVER they can get their hands on as a weapon. The list I compiled above is just the stuff I thought of on the fly while typing it...and I'm a GOOD person who would NOT employ means to hurt/kill people unless I had to! How many MORE ways, then, will an evil person, dead set on hurting others, think of things to do to hurt people?


Again, the innocence and nievite of you guys posting in here is ADMIRABLE, I do sincerely hope that someday, all of Humanity can be as pure and see the good in our race that you do. I look hard for it, but I also realize that you guys, the innocent, will be preyed on by the evil people in this world. And I cannot allow them to quence your pure light forever, because it is your light that is our only hope to someday be a truly good people. If I have to fight off these evil peple to keep your lights safe, then so be it. To this end, I train my body and my mind to be strong and smart and skilled in body, my martial arts, and spirit; so that even if I can't have a gun, I will still always be armed to protect you, because only innocence and goodness can light our way out of ever inclosing darkness.


So, once AGAIN, I say that I would love it if all weapons on earth could be destroyed (would make my job a heck of a lot easier...), but since this is impossible, then I and others need to be armed, otherwise, how can we hope to fight for your sakes when evil people decide to try and kill you?

 

[69Strat]

Kulindahr,

Given your tendency to create facts, here is a link that puts to rest your notion that:

They are the successors to battle rifles, which had either bolt action or semi-automatic action, as the primary infantry weapon.

"A main battle rifle is a battle rifle that is used as a military service rifle. Battle rifles may be bolt-action, semi-automatic, burst fire, or fully-automatic. Modern battle rifles are capable of selective fire. Almost all battle rifles have a long barrel and fire a large caliber round."

"During the latter half of the 20th century, the assault rifle (firing an "intermediate" cartridge) has gained in popularity and superseded the battle rifle as a general infantry weapon in most modern armies. Tacticians during World War II noted that small-arms engagements rarely occurred at distances greater than 300 meters. This meant that the great range and penetration power of the battle rifle was mostly wasted. The assault rifle presented a smaller and lighter package more suitable for close quarters combat, while still delivering accurate fire at the maximum range generally required. The lighter intermediate rounds enabled the user to fire more quickly due to reduced recoil, and also to carry more ammunition."


List of battle rifles
SVT-40
Gewehr 43
AR-10
FN FAL
H&K G3
Lee-Enfield SMLE
SIG SG510
M1 Garand
M14
Howa Type 64
SIG SG542

See: http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-rifle

A typical high school shop program has what's needed to make a gun -- in fact twenty years ago at the local high school, between wood shop and metal shop, a kid made a hunting rifle that works very well. I could go on line and order from Sears the tools I need to make a gun -- indeed, to turn out identical copies of guns.

Your argument that there's no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle might sound good, but it doesn't hold much water in the real world, where any person with "wood shop and metal shop" skills can convert them to function like military assault rifles.

For somebody who claims to have taken firearms courses, your ideas are often far removed from reality, which would explain your tendency to create facts and blur the issues.

 

[radical matt]

Matt, you make a good point about not using your gun.
The people I know who have the most guns and do the most shooting are very much like the officers in a missile silo keeping that delivery system for a nuke all ready to go: the one thing in the world they hope will ever happen is that they should use the thing.
And the "You own yourself principle" that endorses gun ownership also established that you don't initiate aggression.

Well, I keep saying this because that these guys seem to have it in their minds that if people have guns, the guns have some kind of evil, demonic aura about them that will quickly corrupt the person who owns it such that as soon as the person gets home, they will load the gun and go on a killing spree.

I know people who are older that have/carry guns (my father, his father, my mother, my mother's father, my uncle [maybe both of my uncles...]), as well as people my age (a guy I train with, my best friend, my brother, myself, my cousin, an instructor...), the lists go on. Not one of these people has ever shot another human being. Some of them have shot animals, and all of them have shot targets, but none of them have EVER shot another human being.

And I really feel like I have to attack this misconception, because there are three misconceptions here that we have to resolve, otherwise we won't be able to debate this with each other (the pro-gun and anti-gun sides, embodied by you and me on one side and divcurl and AJ on the other.)

Here're the three misconceptions:


First, a person with a gun will be evil and go on a killing spree, OR, will use their guns at the drop of the hat and with any excuse because they want to shoot someone. As Kul and myself are examples (as well as essentially all the people that I know well), people can have guns and be neither evil nor go on killing sprees, and, in fact, do NOT want to ever have to shoot anyone (again, all the people that I know that have guns haven't ever shot another human being.)

This misconception is embodied in divcurl (I think it was...) saying that if you saw an arab with a beard at an airport you would shoot him, or if someone was picking flowers from your garden you would go and shoot them. Neither of these cases are true. Everyone I know who has guns would first investigate or watch what's going on, maybe talk to the person, but would do everything they could to not have to pull out their gun. It's kinda like the samurai; they tried never to unsheath their swords, because once unsheathed, they were honor bound to fight and kill their opponents. So you try your best not to "unsheath" your gun. And, once again, I don't know anyone other than a police officer that I know who has EVER shot another person. So this argument holds no water at all and is just some bizzar stereotype...though unlike most stereotypes, this one hasn't EVER been true.


Second, it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep guns out of people's hands UNLESS you rid the world of them entirely AND prevent any more from being made. A simple "ban" law is ineffective (see prohibition, the war on drugs, the war on terror, attempted bans on obscenity/pornograpy, ban on tabacco and alcohol for underage persons, ect.)

...UNLESS you're able to get rid of all of the contraband items on the planet and make sure that no more are made. As long as there is the capacity to make them ANYWHERE, they will be trafficed, smuggled, and get into the hands of people that will pay enough for them.

...and further, that if all guns in the world are removed from existance, and someone sets up a factory somewhere to make some, since no one else (even the government) has guns, they will be unable to inforce the ban (because the new gun manufactureer has the, literally, out gunned.)


Third government will always be there to protect you (in the body of police/military.) That's the third misconception. There is essentially an infinate (very high) number of crimes that occur around the world each year...each DAY even. Why do these crimes occur? Because "big brother" government simply CANNOT be everywhere at once. Ever hear the phrase "Never a cop around when you need one?" There just aren't enough police officers to be everywhere at ever time to stop a crime in progress and save the innocent citizen who is being victimized. In fact, several courts in cities/states/countries have ruled that the police do not have the obligation to protect you from a crime! And when the police aren't around, or are unable or unwilling (for any reason) to protect you, then either you must protect yourself, or you must be victimized. Sadly, there is no third option.

If the government could be everwhere at once, and took upon itself the obligation to protect you at all times, then, okay, I could see this holding some whater. Unfortunately, the government can't be everywhere at once, doesn't always choose to protect its citizens, and in some cases (totalitarian governments, for example) will actually ATTACK its own citizens. In such cases, which are the majority of cases (VERY few crimes are commited right in front of a police station, naturally), this argument holds no water whatsoever.



I want these three misconceptions to be cleared up, because these seem to be the crux of why anti-gun people cannot admit, even in their wildest dreams, that guns can be good. These misconceptions allow them the ability to attack the innocent (saying they will become evil if you give them a gun) and defend the notion that no guns would be best (no guns on Earth is an impossibility, and as such, a ban on guns removing them from the hands of EVERYONE is also an impossibility), adding that the government will protect you IF someone somehow manages to get a gun illegally dispite the ban (which, as history shows, is also not realistic.)

And I want the guys on the other side to read this post carefully and give it some thought. Because as odd as it sounds, I'm actually partially on their side. The idealist in me says that the world wold be a far better place if all guns were removed from existance (I like swords and martial arts better anyway. ^_^) But the realist in me knows that, sadly, that's impossible. And because it's impossible, trying to do it is only going to endager even more innocent people's lives, because it introduces an artificial power gap between evil people (who WILL have guns illegally) and good people (who are obeying the law and thus will not have guns.) And because the government can't be everywhere at once to defend the good people, they will be often and increasingly preyed on by the evil ones.



Take a look at the touted UK. While they have FAR less gun crimes than the US (because people don't have guns), the occurance of "knifings" has increased. The evil people that can't get guns? They use knives instead. And what's more, their gun crime is slowly coming back, because people are getting a hold of guns.