I recognize the traumatic effects having your house broken into can have on someone's psyche, but I still don't think it is a crime worth responding to by death or extreme violence.
Neither is rape, legally, unless the victim has reason to fear for their life.
It does make it so much easier though to make a fatal misstep as a law abiding citizen though. Just as the Southern-African paralympic runner (forgot his name) who claims to have shot his girlfriend by accident during the night because he confused her with a burglar. Let's assume he isn't lying about this, then this fatal tragedy could've been easily prevented by him just not having a gun and not being able to do rash things and let the police handle it.
Oscar Pistorius. Olympic runner, not just Paralympic. And even if every word he says about that night is the gospel truth, he still committed manslaughter at the very least by firing a lethal weapon through an opaque barrier at a target he couldn't see. And this is apparently not his first gun safety incident; he probably should have lost his license, but I don't know how South Africa handles such things.
You're not allowed to have anti-aircraft missiles or tanks do you?
Modern military equipment is restricted to the military. Old military equipment... you actually can go out and buy a Sherman tank if you have half a million dollars to burn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Random searches are legal in a number of places - the NYC ones still continue today even after being challenged.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
1. At least in my state, random searches aren't legal - at least not without probable cause.
2. Why does greater scrutiny matter if I'm a law-abiding citizen?
3. I try not to patronize businesses that aren't supportive of my rights.
1) For now, most of the "random search" laws that I'm familiar with came up quickly to tamp down on a flurry of crime that started up. (NYC's went through in something like a month or two IIRC) Just because it's not that way today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
2) Almost every single citizen breaks a law unintentionally now and again - I've got a completely clean record, but I could quote at least ten minor laws I've broken in the past week (and only one with the wife before anyone gets any ideas... most of the normal civil law kind not bedroom law...) knowingly plus there's likely some others I broke accidentally without even knowing it. [Minor speeding and running a red light were two - the latter was somewhat unintentionally since my brakes froze a bit and I was halfway through the intersection when they caught - so felt it was safer to break that law]
There's a huge difference between the slap on the wrist I'd get, and someone who's under greater scrutiny by an officer could potentially get for all those minor things.
3) Hope you don't like Chipotle and Starbucks amongst others that are a bit less vocal about it. Most grocery stores have an anti-gun policy as well, additionally most banks (for obvious reasons...). Guess any that are connected with places of law/politics you're not keen on patronizing either... Or airports... Or trains... or many bus lines... etc.
My first response was a strong NO!, but let me put it this way: that depends. If you don't lock your door in a bad neighbourhood, then the recommendation to improve your home security by buying a lock wouldn't be a bad piece of advice now wouldn't it, since it would probably prevent burglars from entering your house.
-----
If someone would disregard this and then have their house broken into, then improving their security would indeed have been the thing they should have done.
And if you don't want to get raped in a bad neighborhood, then the recommendation that you shouldn't walk around in bad neighborhoods alone makes sense, yes?
And if you did get raped in a bad neighborhood or a party with a bunch of people you don't know, then not avoiding those situations are your mistake, yes?
****tiness however, is not so easily related to chances of being raped I think. Is showing too much skin improving your risk to get jumped? Or is the deciding factor for the assailant the fact that the girl is 20 and pretty, regardless of her outfit?
See the thing is, home security can stop or hinder burglars from entering your house. The nature of you clothing style, however, does not stop a rapist from raping you.
And a woman carrying around mace or some sort of self defense item can also stop rapists. Do you plan on faulting every rape victim if they didn't carry around mace or something sort of self defense item?
Your arguments are nonsensical. You aren't even trying to look at things objectively here.
We weren't talking burglars who attack/kill the inhabitants. That's a different story.
----------
Furthermore, I view rape as being morally more repugnant than burglary. I think many (not all) potential burglars may be not much more than junks or brats who are looking for an easy buck, while rapists are all scum with the highest degree of sociopathic behavior. That's an opinion I guess. It's fine we disagree on this, and we can discuss about why we think the way we do, but I don't think this will change much for me through this conversation.
You let me know how I can tell whether someone who broke into my home was a "harmless" thief or someone who wanted to do harm to my family.
See. You created an image in your mind that you think represents something of the truth, and you plan on just sticking to it. But how does that even work?
How do you know that the person who broke into your house meant physical harm or just wanted to steal things unless they actually commit the action? How do you plan on knowing their intent without letting them actually commit to their intent?
You cannot.
The differentiation you are trying to make doesn't exist.
One dimension of this topic is the extent to which the right to hold onto the weapons is given to the appointed police force, and that all dispute and grievance is taken up 'centrally', through authority.
In America they decided that the right to carry the means of your own physical protection is with the people. In Canada you're supposed to let yourself get robbed, and then get square by relying on a police force you're supposed to love and trust totally. So okay.
Castle law is certainly something I empathize with. If I were ever in America and the right applied to me, I'd probably get a gun and carry it precisely where I was allowed... if there was any chance I could learn how to use one. As it turns out, I can't. This means when I think about this hypothesis, I'm one step further removed from reality than just the imagining part, it's more like speculation.
Still, I think when it comes to defending a trespass which is not an actual threat on your life, there is a properness in using a gun as a deterrent, something to strike fear. The role you're supposed to play with 'some hooligan' in your home, unarmed, or if you have the positional advantage with someone with a knife, is domination. Make them surrender. It may be an annoyance to consider the life of someone who is victimizing you, who has discarded the contract of society, and it may be a puzzle to act out a role as a terrifying bearer of a gun rather than just shooting it, but I can't help but think these are duties that a person possesses. And I mean, you'd even be threatening to shoot if the person runs. I think that's the sort of relationship that a victim and a criminal enter into, when the criminal has done that and the victim happens to be someone enjoying the right named in the second amendment. We still don't actually put people to death without a due process if we can ever help it, even if it's hard. It's your responsibility as the person with all the power.
I guess in a few words, you have the right to use what force you must to wrest power from someone trespassing on the Law, but when you have all the power, that's when you must not shoot. When the outcome is uncertain , righteousness is with self defense by all means, but when it is certain, you must strive for a higher outcome.
edit: Tying into the last point of Blinking Spirit's last argument, the distinction is then drawn not on intent, but on the factual situation of the attack. The boundary past which someone is in violation is a fact regardless of where the criminal intends to go from there (they literally are already a criminal). At that point you have dominion over your home and can command surrender for reasonable purpose. And the fact of whether their armament and position is such that they will certainly lose to your bullet, or is at all up to chance, is a fact. I'd say it's objective, but on the other hand, the "certainty" involves the victim's recognition of these facts, which is subjective. So I'm certainly not saying that such perception, of tactical dominance, nor such luck, of a lesser armed, poorly positioned, well-lit opponent, are at all going to be common, but the principle which I believe animates that right of dominion, the castle law, the right to carry in public, only goes this far.
If the difference between a good guy carrying a gun and a bad guy carrying a gun is a metric that I cannot quantify by the time I am in danger of my life, why would I want people carrying guns everywhere?
On campus, if I see a person with a gun, I can and should call the police because he is most likely up to no good. But if guns were allowed on campus, we wouldn't have any reason to call the police and therefore it is more likely the person who is going to kill someone is less likely to be noticed.
If the difference between a good guy carrying a gun and a bad guy carrying a gun is a metric that I cannot quantify by the time I am in danger of my life, why would I want people carrying guns everywhere?
On campus, if I see a person with a gun, I can and should call the police because he is most likely up to no good. But if guns were allowed on campus, we wouldn't have any reason to call the police and therefore it is more likely the person who is going to kill someone is less likely to be noticed.
That reasoning has no merit and makes no sense. A guy could just as easily carry a hidden gun on campus and you would never know to call the police.
Here is an example of how simply having the ability to own a gun gives people non-violent ways to protect themselves:
Shotguns have a very recognizable sound when you pump the action. That sound on it's own could very easily scare off an intruder. Because it is conceivable that I could own a gun, if someone breaks into my house, I could play a recording of that noise and potentially scare off a threat. On the other hand... if I am not allowed to own a gun and I play that sound, the intruder is going to know that I am full of *****.
What do you think would happen if college students were allowed to carry on campus? Would it not be possible that school shootings would go down as potential criminals would have to consider that they may be stopped before they manage to cause any real damage? Is it not possible that they would then plan to target other areas? Predators have a habit of going for weak and easy prey. Why try to go on a shooting rampage at a gun show when you have a much better chance of inflicting more harm at a school? Making gun free zones just makes publicly known easy targets.
From my understanding, don't most school shootings happen where the students have a plan of killing themselves anyway? At least that seems to be what happens in real life so would other people having guns really affect that? Most school shootings are done by people who are also not thinking clearly, does having other people with guns stop that?
And in America, how many adult "predators" attack schools even though they don't have guns? Usually, in pretty much every case, it is a student of that school. If school's were so defenseless, why don't we see more adult shootings at schools?
From my understanding, don't most school shootings happen where the students have a plan of killing themselves anyway? At least that seems to be what happens in real life so would other people having guns really affect that? Most school shootings are done by people who are also not thinking clearly, does having other people with guns stop that?
And in America, how many adult "predators" attack schools even though they don't have guns? Usually, in pretty much every case, it is a student of that school. If school's were so defenseless, why don't we see more adult shootings at schools?
They do plan on killing themselves after doing a bunch of damage... If I remember correctly the Sandy Hook Shooter killed himself as soon as he could hear the sirens coming. If someone wanted to do maximum damage, knowing they could be disabled immediately by someone carrying would make the idea less attractive.
From my understanding, don't most school shootings happen where the students have a plan of killing themselves anyway? At least that seems to be what happens in real life so would other people having guns really affect that? Most school shootings are done by people who are also not thinking clearly, does having other people with guns stop that?
And in America, how many adult "predators" attack schools even though they don't have guns? Usually, in pretty much every case, it is a student of that school. If school's were so defenseless, why don't we see more adult shootings at schools?
Why does it matter, if a shooter intends to commit suicide? The goal in concealed carry isnt necessarily apprehension, but prevention, or at least damage mitigation. And, it happens:
Well yes and no. If you're 16 and go to a party with strangers and get drunk that of course a bad idea. It is, however, still not a situation where I would expect people to go and rape such a girl. Because of the nature of rape; the degree of immorality one has to posses to do such a horrible thing is so great that I do not think many would do this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, I'm not all too happy with the rape-home invasion analogy that's going on here and I think is doesn't give us all that more insight. Make your point as plain as you can or drop it all together okay?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem not to grasp the meaning of an opinion. I think rape is more immoral and a more sever crime than burglary. This is an opinion. You can disagree all you want but it doesn't make your opinion more objective; such is the nature of opinions, you know.
I never said my opinion is more objective. I said that you're not looking at things objectively. It's clearly obvious you have placed rape on a far higher pedestal than robbery, and in doing so you refuse to make objective comparison between situations and examples.
For example, "It is, however, still not a situation where I would expect people to go and rape such a girl. Because of the nature of rape; the degree of immorality one has to posses to do such a horrible thing is so great that I do not think many would do this."
Expectation has nothing to do with it. Suppose person got raped. If the person didn't (or did) do X, then the person might not have gotten raped. Therefore, the fact that the person did (or didn't) do X is theirs to blame.
Not for sure, no. But you can make a pretty good estimate I'm sure. If you use your right to have and use a gun than you should know how to use it shouldn't you? And I think that's not only target practice. If you think citizens can play cop (which I think many can't) then fine, then you should be able to make a quick and accurate threat assessment and be able to neutralize a criminal without killing him (so making him surrender). If you can't and you just shoot whenever you get scared you are a danger to yourself and others.
Pretty good estimate? Do you have anything to support that besides the stereotypical threatening image and the "normal" contrast you gave? Or are you going to just say "it's my opinion!" again?
I know what opinions are. But if they are not supported by good reasoning on your part or some sort of evidence that you can pull off without much trouble, then they're vacuous and pointless opinions.
I mean, the example you gave essentially plays off the concept of threat. The big tattooed man looks much more threatening than the random teen devoid of any threatening characteristics. Therefore I can tell the tattooed man plans on killing me while the teen doesn't?
You let me know whether this man looks threatening to not
Is telling a home invasion victim to lock their doors any different from telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have been alone drunk at a party?
Ok the rape vs home invasion thing is getting old and I really don't see why people think it's such a good analogy. But I guess I'll bite once more.
So my answer: yes, it's a world of difference. As I explained in my last post the immorality of an average rapist is much greater than an average house robber, because of the nature of those crimes. Some poor gangster-idolizing kid can decide to walk into an open or unlocked door to see whether he can earn some easy cash, while it takes a truly ****ed-up mind to force an unwilling victim to having sex with you.
You mean it takes a truly ****ed-up 20 year old drunk frat guy to go with the drunken advances of a girl and sleep with her even though she's so drunk it would legally be rape? Not every rapist is some creepy old guy with a weapon or drugs... a lot of the time it's some idiot that truly doesn't understand how consent works. Kind of like how sometimes a burglar is just some idiot kid looking for some cash laying around... and sometimes it's a career criminal planning to strip your house bear and destroy anything they dont take (which... if I was a burglar I would definitely take the extra minute to break a gas/water pipe as an anti-forensic measure).
In either case the victim was practicing risky behavior, but again in both cases the law should have been protecting them. If everyone followed the law nobody would need to lock their doors, similarly if everyone followed the law, girls would have to consider the dangers of being alone at night.
Look, I see what you're trying to do, but no where I live girls don't get raped if they get pass out drunk on parties. Just because you have to be such a sick son of a ***** to do so. People sneaking off with laptops or wallets because you failed to lock your house properly happens all the time though. Of course, both behaviors are risky; but at least in my little world here in the former it is very, very rare something bad happens to the girl in question.
This tells me that where you live people have no regard for personal property... that's exactly the kind of place that could benefit from those stupid kids knowing that if they try stealing a laptop they just might end up with an extra hole in their body.
Your assessment on burglars is nothing more than conjecture. I could just as easily say I think most people that go through the effort of break and entering are not just looking for a quick buck but are violent criminals. They have probably thought their crimes out and are prepared to deal with potentially being confronted. I'd much rather be in jail for shooting some idiot teenager that broke into my house, than be sitting in the morgue next to my family... or worse.
Yes, my assessment is a conjecture, since it is an OPINION. Just like yours. I, however, have reasons and arguments to support this opinion. And the situation you outline is of course possible if you live in a frightening neighbourhood, but the fact that you are afraid does not give you the right to shoot first and ask questions later, especially if there are other alternatives. I you'd rather shoot an idiot teenager than do the responsible thing and either call the cops or scare the teenager off then I'd hope you'd be facing quite a lot of jailtime for the safety of others.
Who said anything about shooting first? That was never the point of the thread. If I had a gun for home defense it would be a pump action shot gun. Why? Because the sound it makes. If I heard someone break in I'd pump that thing loudly and see what the response is. Blindly shooting at a dark shape is a good way to kill your own family members. I doubt that a single person in here is supporting that. But if I do shout/pump a gun and the dark shape doesnt speak or turn to run, there is a good chance I am going to assume something is very wrong. If it starts coming forward or I see a reach or pointing motion I'm probably going to shoot. Hopefully a mute teenager never tries to break into my house at night.
(1) I think home invasion should not be responded to with killing the burglar, unless there really is no other alternative. So the emphasis should lie on trying to prevent people - including criminals - getting hurt and not on 'better safe than sorry'.
(2) I think rape and home invasion are in some ways comparable (as in that the victim can experience psychological trauma in both cases), but vary greatly in degrees of severity as a crime which makes the analogy unsound.
1) So you consider the potential safety of some random person you don't even know who just violated the privacy of your home and potentially the safety of your family members as equal to your loved ones?
This is what I don't get. I simply do not understand how people place equal empathy towards the criminal than the victims. Suppose that the invader really is just a harmless kid who wanted to steal things. Suppose he brought a backpack and stole laptops and other valuable items worth thousands of dollars in sum total. Yes, a couple thousands of dollars don't mean much to a upper-middle class family who (probably) has a big savings account and a lot of back-up cash and can afford to buy everything.
But suppose that your family doesn't make 200k+ a year... What then? It takes a long time to replace thousands of dollars all at once.
I do not understand the argument of "yes, breaking and entering is bad, but it shouldn't be responded to with lethal force!" Why not? Because life is sacred? Clearly the invader considered mine less sacred with his/hers. That doesn't mean that I have to respond with the same, but at least recognize that the invader clearly considers me and my livelihood less important than his/hers.
Let's be clear- I'm not saying that I would attempt to kill anyone who broke into my house on sight. I agree, attacking someone without giving time to know how much of a threat they really do pose isn't a good idea.
But I think people downplay the seriousness of home invasions far too much. The effect of it can be both incredibly severe to your finances and your mental health, and it can be lethal if things go poorly. That's why I find (2) rather naive in thinking.
A rape is a serious crime. It is serious because it represents a total disrespect of the victim in every possible way. The rapist shows absolute domination over the victim's body and essentially says to the victim "You are powerless. I hold absolute power over you and I can do whatever I want to you". This is why rape is serious, not because it's a woman getting sexually assaulted and such (also why I find the lack of focus on women raping men and men raping men incredibly stupid and suggests that the anti-rape advocates are more feminists rather than people actually worried about rape and the traumas it causes). Rape is serious because it symbolizes the victim holding NO POWER WHATSOEVER.
People who don't consider rape all that bad don't realize this. They think it's just a man, or a woman, having fun and it's not all that bad for the victim. The "not all that bad" is flat-out wrong. To lose your sense of security and strength is a catastrophic blow to your mental health.
And for all of those reasons a home invasion is the same as rape in mental consequences. Your home is supposed to be where you are safe and secure. It is where your belongings stay and where your family lives. When you invite people to your home, you are doing more than just giving them a place to stay for a bit. You're opening yourself up to them and trusting them and believing that they will not harm to you. Anyone who has resided in another's house for any extended period of time would realize this.
And that is why a home invasion is also a serious crime. The invader shows absolutely no respect for you and being a victim of a home invasion shows that you are powerless to defend what is supposed to be YOUR place. Again, the damage it does to you mentally is considerable.
This doesn't change regardless of the motive of the invader. The invader could be some sort of sadistic monster who wants to murder you, want to kidnap your children, or just steal your belongings. The fact that people try to make it seem as though the motive matters is about as ridiculous as saying that a spouse forcing sex on their partner isn't rape (it is, for all the reasons I stated above) or that a woman practically invited it by dressing provocatively and teasing men all night (absolutely irrelevant, again for all the reasons I stated above).
Yes, in a world of rape, murder, gang violence, people trafficking and drugs smuggle I think breaking into someones home is a minor crime relatively speaking.
People can break into your house and do 3 out of five things on that list. Maybe that makes it less minor (Or even Major)
(1) I think home invasion should not be responded to with killing the burglar, unless there really is no other alternative. So the emphasis should lie on trying to prevent people - including criminals - getting hurt and not on 'better safe than sorry'.
I agree with this. Prevention is indeed better than cure. The question is is the prevention possible?
Regarding FluffyBunny's comments wrt: use of a gun to defend yourself from rape, sadly, no, that won't help simply because, well, it's not some stranger hiding in the bushes.
Anyway, I'm for the right to bear arms, unless the bearer is a danger to himself or others. And make sure to lock your guns up if you have kids! But I don't go around brandishing weapons randomly like I've seen some people do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
(1) I think home invasion should not be responded to with killing the burglar, unless there really is no other alternative. So the emphasis should lie on trying to prevent people - including criminals - getting hurt and not on 'better safe than sorry'.
(2) I think rape and home invasion are in some ways comparable (as in that the victim can experience psychological trauma in both cases), but vary greatly in degrees of severity as a crime which makes the analogy unsound.
1) So you consider the potential safety of some random person you don't even know who just violated the privacy of your home and potentially the safety of your family members as equal to your loved ones?
What I'm hearing is the difference in valuing the good of the in-group (one's loved ones) versus the valuing of good extended universally. These are two sorts of Human values that are as close as distinct values get, but in this case I guess their differences come to the fore.
If I'm right, then I am absolutely not in a position (for yet another reason), to comment on how it is for people with a high emphasis on the first value, because for me I do not think I ever love certain people more greatly than People. Thusly I am without family or want of one. But maybe pointing out that this is where the convictions of the other side of this argument come from, will help this debate along.
To those who are saying, "Yes, I do put that person's life on equal level with the people in my family", their feeling is coming from the value of Universalism. Such, an argument between that value and the value that is specific to "one's loved ones", has to appeal to some higher realm of values.
That said, Laws rank our Human values for us all the time. We draw those laws to satisfy the Greater Good overall despite frustrating the way we would arrange these priorities by ourselves. So we have to discuss which holds up the social glue better: To make the Universalist valuers endure preventable deaths, or to make the Benevolence valuers endure terrifying hardship and preventable victimization.
I was going to post about Elliot Rodger's killing spree in this topic, but after reading a transcript of some of his rants I think it would fit better as a debate on misogyny and feelings of entitlement than gun control.
What do you all think? Should a new topic be made?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
As a practicioner of Kendo and Kenjutsu, I would love to be able to carry around a sword with me, partially for the weeaboo factor, and partially because a common thug who watches too much TV wouldn't go after a dude with a large pointy thing. Of course Texas is very strict on knives and other bladed weaponry, despite their long gun open carry law. Schizo much?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
I was going to post about Elliot Rodger's killing spree in this topic, but after reading a transcript of some of his rants I think it would fit better as a debate on misogyny and feelings of entitlement than gun control.
What do you all think? Should a new topic be made?
As a practicioner of Kendo and Kenjutsu, I would love to be able to carry around a sword with me, partially for the weeaboo factor, and partially because a common thug who watches too much TV wouldn't go after a dude with a large pointy thing. Of course Texas is very strict on knives and other bladed weaponry, despite their long gun open carry law. Schizo much?
Well, among other things, it's pretty difficult to conceal a katana.
Actually, I am curious what the laws are around carrying a katana. I remember a video going viral involving a guy fending off a robber with a katana on a subway.
Actually, I am curious what the laws are around carrying a katana. I remember a video going viral involving a guy fending off a robber with a katana on a subway.
A kid not far from me killed a burglar using a "samurai sword":
People with guns or conceled weapons are either paranoid or just trying to get into trouble. Even country like englund just think its outrageous for us to have weapons. We might as well let people strap bombs on themselves or let them have gernades.
I was going to post about Elliot Rodger's killing spree in this topic, but after reading a transcript of some of his rants I think it would fit better as a debate on misogyny and feelings of entitlement than gun control.
What do you all think? Should a new topic be made?
It's pretty clear that the guy had a couple screws loose in his head. Feelings of entitlement, extreme narcissism, just general signs of psychopathy iirc.
People with guns or conceled weapons are either paranoid or just trying to get into trouble. Even country like englund just think its outrageous for us to have weapons. We might as well let people strap bombs on themselves or let them have gernades.
Is this a serious comment or just a troll post? I'm having trouble discerning.
Warning for spammy troll accusation. - Blinking Spirit
People with guns or conceled weapons are either paranoid or just trying to get into trouble. Even country like englund just think its outrageous for us to have weapons. We might as well let people strap bombs on themselves or let them have gernades.
Is this a serious comment or just a troll post? I'm having trouble discerning.
It doesn't really matter. He stereotyped a broad group of people. If he's trolling, he doesn't deserve a response. Otherwise, he's not likely to generate a meaningful discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
No. I never said rapists should be killed. Heck I am firmly against death penatly (socialist European here remember).
Death penalty is another debate entirely. What may be necessary and justifiable in an active crisis situation is very different from what may be necessary and justifiable as a matter of punitive justice. But if you don't believe it's justifiable to use lethal force against either a burglar or a rapist, what is the point of discussing the difference between the two on this thread about lethal force?
Read what he wrote again. "...if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family..."
You left out the important part cleverly.
That was the important part. You were (and still are) attacking a strawman of his position in which people are shooting blindly at stupid teenagers without determining what is required for protection. His statement was expressly qualified to scenarios where shooting is required, and you missed that.
But ehm, he shot without assessing the target right? And that was wrong right? Then, how different is it to shoot a burglar of whom you did not assess the level of threat yet? Or how wrong is it to shoot him when it seems clear enough that he is unarmed? Because that is sort of my whole point with this home invasion thing.
Meh, okay I'll let this one slip since I don't have evidence that this particular statement is being supported by a given percentage of Americans, but the willingness to kill in order to protect family/house/country is a widespread thing in America the way I subjectively see it. Disagree if you like.
Don't wave your hands about this. It is not a subjective matter. A given number of Americans either do or don't have this opinion, objectively. And if you can't furnish evidence, your "subjective" position is completely worthless - especially since you don't even live in the country in question to gain a direct impression. What would you think if I declared that the way I (who have never been to New Zealand) subjectively see it, New Zealanders are absolutely nuts about mountain climbing?
Sometimes it feels like getting a lecture when debating with you. But no I disagree on this one, not allowing your citizens to have tools of mass destruction because they are highly dangerous and should only be operated by professionals does not equal treating your citizens as criminals.
I suspect it's the whole freedom thing Americans tend to get crazy about and it's not complete unreasonable, but I'd rather have the freedom to live in a safe and almost gun-free country and to walk outside without needing any weaponry at all than to be able to have guns.
Out of curiosity, what is your position on government surveillance, phone-tapping, email reading, and so on?
Read what he wrote again. "...if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family..."
And rape victims have medical insurance. If you can be flippant, we can be flippant.
Oscar Pistorius. Olympic runner, not just Paralympic. And even if every word he says about that night is the gospel truth, he still committed manslaughter at the very least by firing a lethal weapon through an opaque barrier at a target he couldn't see. And this is apparently not his first gun safety incident; he probably should have lost his license, but I don't know how South Africa handles such things.
Nobody except you is saying it's widespread. And what Americans have said, you've been misreading - see above.
It's oxymoronic for it to be in a citizen's "best interest" to be treated like a criminal when they aren't.
Modern military equipment is restricted to the military. Old military equipment... you actually can go out and buy a Sherman tank if you have half a million dollars to burn.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1) For now, most of the "random search" laws that I'm familiar with came up quickly to tamp down on a flurry of crime that started up. (NYC's went through in something like a month or two IIRC) Just because it's not that way today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.
2) Almost every single citizen breaks a law unintentionally now and again - I've got a completely clean record, but I could quote at least ten minor laws I've broken in the past week (and only one with the wife before anyone gets any ideas... most of the normal civil law kind not bedroom law...) knowingly plus there's likely some others I broke accidentally without even knowing it. [Minor speeding and running a red light were two - the latter was somewhat unintentionally since my brakes froze a bit and I was halfway through the intersection when they caught - so felt it was safer to break that law]
There's a huge difference between the slap on the wrist I'd get, and someone who's under greater scrutiny by an officer could potentially get for all those minor things.
3) Hope you don't like Chipotle and Starbucks amongst others that are a bit less vocal about it. Most grocery stores have an anti-gun policy as well, additionally most banks (for obvious reasons...). Guess any that are connected with places of law/politics you're not keen on patronizing either... Or airports... Or trains... or many bus lines... etc.
And if you don't want to get raped in a bad neighborhood, then the recommendation that you shouldn't walk around in bad neighborhoods alone makes sense, yes?
And if you did get raped in a bad neighborhood or a party with a bunch of people you don't know, then not avoiding those situations are your mistake, yes?
You completely missed the point again.
And a woman carrying around mace or some sort of self defense item can also stop rapists. Do you plan on faulting every rape victim if they didn't carry around mace or something sort of self defense item?
Your arguments are nonsensical. You aren't even trying to look at things objectively here.
You let me know how I can tell whether someone who broke into my home was a "harmless" thief or someone who wanted to do harm to my family.
See. You created an image in your mind that you think represents something of the truth, and you plan on just sticking to it. But how does that even work?
How do you know that the person who broke into your house meant physical harm or just wanted to steal things unless they actually commit the action? How do you plan on knowing their intent without letting them actually commit to their intent?
You cannot.
The differentiation you are trying to make doesn't exist.
In America they decided that the right to carry the means of your own physical protection is with the people. In Canada you're supposed to let yourself get robbed, and then get square by relying on a police force you're supposed to love and trust totally. So okay.
Castle law is certainly something I empathize with. If I were ever in America and the right applied to me, I'd probably get a gun and carry it precisely where I was allowed... if there was any chance I could learn how to use one. As it turns out, I can't. This means when I think about this hypothesis, I'm one step further removed from reality than just the imagining part, it's more like speculation.
Still, I think when it comes to defending a trespass which is not an actual threat on your life, there is a properness in using a gun as a deterrent, something to strike fear. The role you're supposed to play with 'some hooligan' in your home, unarmed, or if you have the positional advantage with someone with a knife, is domination. Make them surrender. It may be an annoyance to consider the life of someone who is victimizing you, who has discarded the contract of society, and it may be a puzzle to act out a role as a terrifying bearer of a gun rather than just shooting it, but I can't help but think these are duties that a person possesses. And I mean, you'd even be threatening to shoot if the person runs. I think that's the sort of relationship that a victim and a criminal enter into, when the criminal has done that and the victim happens to be someone enjoying the right named in the second amendment. We still don't actually put people to death without a due process if we can ever help it, even if it's hard. It's your responsibility as the person with all the power.
I guess in a few words, you have the right to use what force you must to wrest power from someone trespassing on the Law, but when you have all the power, that's when you must not shoot. When the outcome is uncertain , righteousness is with self defense by all means, but when it is certain, you must strive for a higher outcome.
edit: Tying into the last point of Blinking Spirit's last argument, the distinction is then drawn not on intent, but on the factual situation of the attack. The boundary past which someone is in violation is a fact regardless of where the criminal intends to go from there (they literally are already a criminal). At that point you have dominion over your home and can command surrender for reasonable purpose. And the fact of whether their armament and position is such that they will certainly lose to your bullet, or is at all up to chance, is a fact. I'd say it's objective, but on the other hand, the "certainty" involves the victim's recognition of these facts, which is subjective. So I'm certainly not saying that such perception, of tactical dominance, nor such luck, of a lesser armed, poorly positioned, well-lit opponent, are at all going to be common, but the principle which I believe animates that right of dominion, the castle law, the right to carry in public, only goes this far.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
On campus, if I see a person with a gun, I can and should call the police because he is most likely up to no good. But if guns were allowed on campus, we wouldn't have any reason to call the police and therefore it is more likely the person who is going to kill someone is less likely to be noticed.
That reasoning has no merit and makes no sense. A guy could just as easily carry a hidden gun on campus and you would never know to call the police.
Here is an example of how simply having the ability to own a gun gives people non-violent ways to protect themselves:
Shotguns have a very recognizable sound when you pump the action. That sound on it's own could very easily scare off an intruder. Because it is conceivable that I could own a gun, if someone breaks into my house, I could play a recording of that noise and potentially scare off a threat. On the other hand... if I am not allowed to own a gun and I play that sound, the intruder is going to know that I am full of *****.
What do you think would happen if college students were allowed to carry on campus? Would it not be possible that school shootings would go down as potential criminals would have to consider that they may be stopped before they manage to cause any real damage? Is it not possible that they would then plan to target other areas? Predators have a habit of going for weak and easy prey. Why try to go on a shooting rampage at a gun show when you have a much better chance of inflicting more harm at a school? Making gun free zones just makes publicly known easy targets.
And in America, how many adult "predators" attack schools even though they don't have guns? Usually, in pretty much every case, it is a student of that school. If school's were so defenseless, why don't we see more adult shootings at schools?
They do plan on killing themselves after doing a bunch of damage... If I remember correctly the Sandy Hook Shooter killed himself as soon as he could hear the sirens coming. If someone wanted to do maximum damage, knowing they could be disabled immediately by someone carrying would make the idea less attractive.
Why does it matter, if a shooter intends to commit suicide? The goal in concealed carry isnt necessarily apprehension, but prevention, or at least damage mitigation. And, it happens:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit?s=mobile
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
I never said my opinion is more objective. I said that you're not looking at things objectively. It's clearly obvious you have placed rape on a far higher pedestal than robbery, and in doing so you refuse to make objective comparison between situations and examples.
For example, "It is, however, still not a situation where I would expect people to go and rape such a girl. Because of the nature of rape; the degree of immorality one has to posses to do such a horrible thing is so great that I do not think many would do this."
Expectation has nothing to do with it. Suppose person got raped. If the person didn't (or did) do X, then the person might not have gotten raped. Therefore, the fact that the person did (or didn't) do X is theirs to blame.
Do you agree with this or not?
One big difference- I never say "You probably won't change my mind".
Pretty good estimate? Do you have anything to support that besides the stereotypical threatening image and the "normal" contrast you gave? Or are you going to just say "it's my opinion!" again?
I know what opinions are. But if they are not supported by good reasoning on your part or some sort of evidence that you can pull off without much trouble, then they're vacuous and pointless opinions.
I mean, the example you gave essentially plays off the concept of threat. The big tattooed man looks much more threatening than the random teen devoid of any threatening characteristics. Therefore I can tell the tattooed man plans on killing me while the teen doesn't?
You let me know whether this man looks threatening to not
You mean it takes a truly ****ed-up 20 year old drunk frat guy to go with the drunken advances of a girl and sleep with her even though she's so drunk it would legally be rape? Not every rapist is some creepy old guy with a weapon or drugs... a lot of the time it's some idiot that truly doesn't understand how consent works. Kind of like how sometimes a burglar is just some idiot kid looking for some cash laying around... and sometimes it's a career criminal planning to strip your house bear and destroy anything they dont take (which... if I was a burglar I would definitely take the extra minute to break a gas/water pipe as an anti-forensic measure).
This tells me that where you live people have no regard for personal property... that's exactly the kind of place that could benefit from those stupid kids knowing that if they try stealing a laptop they just might end up with an extra hole in their body.
Who said anything about shooting first? That was never the point of the thread. If I had a gun for home defense it would be a pump action shot gun. Why? Because the sound it makes. If I heard someone break in I'd pump that thing loudly and see what the response is. Blindly shooting at a dark shape is a good way to kill your own family members. I doubt that a single person in here is supporting that. But if I do shout/pump a gun and the dark shape doesnt speak or turn to run, there is a good chance I am going to assume something is very wrong. If it starts coming forward or I see a reach or pointing motion I'm probably going to shoot. Hopefully a mute teenager never tries to break into my house at night.
In germany you would get arrested for carrying a weapon that is ready to fire in public.
Not at all. Just because I claim something about you doesn't necessarily mean that I am not doing it...
1) So you consider the potential safety of some random person you don't even know who just violated the privacy of your home and potentially the safety of your family members as equal to your loved ones?
This is what I don't get. I simply do not understand how people place equal empathy towards the criminal than the victims. Suppose that the invader really is just a harmless kid who wanted to steal things. Suppose he brought a backpack and stole laptops and other valuable items worth thousands of dollars in sum total. Yes, a couple thousands of dollars don't mean much to a upper-middle class family who (probably) has a big savings account and a lot of back-up cash and can afford to buy everything.
But suppose that your family doesn't make 200k+ a year... What then? It takes a long time to replace thousands of dollars all at once.
I do not understand the argument of "yes, breaking and entering is bad, but it shouldn't be responded to with lethal force!" Why not? Because life is sacred? Clearly the invader considered mine less sacred with his/hers. That doesn't mean that I have to respond with the same, but at least recognize that the invader clearly considers me and my livelihood less important than his/hers.
Let's be clear- I'm not saying that I would attempt to kill anyone who broke into my house on sight. I agree, attacking someone without giving time to know how much of a threat they really do pose isn't a good idea.
But I think people downplay the seriousness of home invasions far too much. The effect of it can be both incredibly severe to your finances and your mental health, and it can be lethal if things go poorly. That's why I find (2) rather naive in thinking.
A rape is a serious crime. It is serious because it represents a total disrespect of the victim in every possible way. The rapist shows absolute domination over the victim's body and essentially says to the victim "You are powerless. I hold absolute power over you and I can do whatever I want to you". This is why rape is serious, not because it's a woman getting sexually assaulted and such (also why I find the lack of focus on women raping men and men raping men incredibly stupid and suggests that the anti-rape advocates are more feminists rather than people actually worried about rape and the traumas it causes). Rape is serious because it symbolizes the victim holding NO POWER WHATSOEVER.
People who don't consider rape all that bad don't realize this. They think it's just a man, or a woman, having fun and it's not all that bad for the victim. The "not all that bad" is flat-out wrong. To lose your sense of security and strength is a catastrophic blow to your mental health.
And for all of those reasons a home invasion is the same as rape in mental consequences. Your home is supposed to be where you are safe and secure. It is where your belongings stay and where your family lives. When you invite people to your home, you are doing more than just giving them a place to stay for a bit. You're opening yourself up to them and trusting them and believing that they will not harm to you. Anyone who has resided in another's house for any extended period of time would realize this.
And that is why a home invasion is also a serious crime. The invader shows absolutely no respect for you and being a victim of a home invasion shows that you are powerless to defend what is supposed to be YOUR place. Again, the damage it does to you mentally is considerable.
This doesn't change regardless of the motive of the invader. The invader could be some sort of sadistic monster who wants to murder you, want to kidnap your children, or just steal your belongings. The fact that people try to make it seem as though the motive matters is about as ridiculous as saying that a spouse forcing sex on their partner isn't rape (it is, for all the reasons I stated above) or that a woman practically invited it by dressing provocatively and teasing men all night (absolutely irrelevant, again for all the reasons I stated above).
People can break into your house and do 3 out of five things on that list. Maybe that makes it less minor (Or even Major)
I agree with this. Prevention is indeed better than cure. The question is is the prevention possible?
Anyway, I'm for the right to bear arms, unless the bearer is a danger to himself or others. And make sure to lock your guns up if you have kids! But I don't go around brandishing weapons randomly like I've seen some people do.
On phasing:
What I'm hearing is the difference in valuing the good of the in-group (one's loved ones) versus the valuing of good extended universally. These are two sorts of Human values that are as close as distinct values get, but in this case I guess their differences come to the fore.
If I'm right, then I am absolutely not in a position (for yet another reason), to comment on how it is for people with a high emphasis on the first value, because for me I do not think I ever love certain people more greatly than People. Thusly I am without family or want of one. But maybe pointing out that this is where the convictions of the other side of this argument come from, will help this debate along.
To those who are saying, "Yes, I do put that person's life on equal level with the people in my family", their feeling is coming from the value of Universalism. Such, an argument between that value and the value that is specific to "one's loved ones", has to appeal to some higher realm of values.
That said, Laws rank our Human values for us all the time. We draw those laws to satisfy the Greater Good overall despite frustrating the way we would arrange these priorities by ourselves. So we have to discuss which holds up the social glue better: To make the Universalist valuers endure preventable deaths, or to make the Benevolence valuers endure terrifying hardship and preventable victimization.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
What do you all think? Should a new topic be made?
Art is life itself.
"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."
-H. P. Lovecraft
Well, among other things, it's pretty difficult to conceal a katana.
Actually, I am curious what the laws are around carrying a katana. I remember a video going viral involving a guy fending off a robber with a katana on a subway.
A kid not far from me killed a burglar using a "samurai sword":
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/johns-hopkins-student-kills-burglary-suspect-samurai-sword-article-1.379810
To my knowledge, the kid in question was never charged with anything.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
thanks for the awsome image http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=329663!
proud member of the Spirit Of EDH
It's pretty clear that the guy had a couple screws loose in his head. Feelings of entitlement, extreme narcissism, just general signs of psychopathy iirc.
Is this a serious comment or just a troll post? I'm having trouble discerning.
Warning for spammy troll accusation. - Blinking Spirit
It doesn't really matter. He stereotyped a broad group of people. If he's trolling, he doesn't deserve a response. Otherwise, he's not likely to generate a meaningful discussion.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
That was the important part. You were (and still are) attacking a strawman of his position in which people are shooting blindly at stupid teenagers without determining what is required for protection. His statement was expressly qualified to scenarios where shooting is required, and you missed that.
And, again, you are clearly attacking a strawman.
Don't wave your hands about this. It is not a subjective matter. A given number of Americans either do or don't have this opinion, objectively. And if you can't furnish evidence, your "subjective" position is completely worthless - especially since you don't even live in the country in question to gain a direct impression. What would you think if I declared that the way I (who have never been to New Zealand) subjectively see it, New Zealanders are absolutely nuts about mountain climbing?
A gun is not a tool of mass destruction.
Out of curiosity, what is your position on government surveillance, phone-tapping, email reading, and so on?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.