6 ms·

> There's also a large political faction who believe that a private right to kill people is important and inherent in gun ownership. "private right to kill peo

by 15155 11y ago

> There's also a large political faction who believe that a private right to kill people is important and inherent in gun ownership. "private right to kill people" - hah. I assume you value the lives of criminals more than the law-abiding. If you burglarize my home, attack me, or otherwise commit felonious acts on my property, my person, I have the right to stop that threat. You do not believe that people should have the right to protect themselves?

task_queue 11y ago
Disarming/disabling != Shooting someone dead. Just because you have an easy button for homicide doesn't mean it's called for in every hostile situation. Courts agree. Try killing someone for robbing your house.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Fantasy land != Reality There is no such thing as shooting to disable. You always aim for center of mass and if you do not feel threatened enough to shoot to kill then you shouldn't be shooting at all. Now the caveat to this is if you shot an intruder and they're still alive, but now injured to the degree where you can safely disarm them and keep a gun drawn on them; current U.S law makes this a problem. You can get in legal trouble/sued by someone who broke into your home with a weapon intent on killing you, but only if they live. This means not only are you shooting to kill - you're now dumping an entire magazine into the person to make sure they are dead. E: To the people who downvoted, how would you disarm an intruder with a gun? Ask them politely to put the weapon down? Run at them with a baseball bat (and risk getting shot)? Or maybe shoot them in the arm or leg? Where major arteries are and the shot is still likely to be fatal and also has a higher chance of missing entirely. Life isn't Call of Duty and shots to the legs/arm don't just "injure", they kill. So I'll repeat myself: there is no such thing as shooting to disarm or disable in real life. Only in fantasy first-person-shooter land.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    A shot to the hand or the leg will kill you far slower than a shot to the chest though, and will be much easier to patch up.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      If you hit the brachial or femoral artery they can bleed out within minutes. If you puncture a lung they can still survive. It all depends on where they get hit. Many people live from potentially fatal areas being hit and others bleed out from non-fatal regions being hit. In either case, their survival puts you in legal trouble under current law. You should be shooting to kill if you feel deadly force is justified. If your intent is not to kill, then deadly force was not justified. Good luck aiming for a hand. I advise you go to a firing range and see how often you can hit the arm of a moving target without taking time to aim (remember: taking time to aim = you are now the one being shot). You'll have fractions of a second to get someone in your sights and take the shot. It'll cost $30-40 to use a range, rent a gun, and buy ammunition for an hour. You'll leave with a more informed opinion of how operating a firearm works. [0] https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        I know you can't possibly accurately hit someones extremities, never made that claim either. My post was in response to you making it sound like wounds to the extremities would be equally likely to kill as wounds to the center of mass, which is definitely not true. And thanks, I've already got a range membership.
        Nadya 11y ago
        My point is you're far less likely to even hit the hand. Aiming for it would be the worst decision you could make when your life is on the line and depends on you actually hitting and disabling the threat. My point was you should never shoot to harm, only to kill. That means no hand shots. Period. Regardless of the chances of a fatally wounding shot. My point - furthermore - was that it isn't a guaranteed "disabling" shot. It's still possible to kill. The thought of "shoot to disable" is a misinformed thought educated on nothing but Hollywood movies and video games.
- 15155 11y ago
  > Try killing someone for robbing your house. In most jurisdictions this is completely legal under most circumstances. You can't always kill someone fleeing your just-robbed home (state-specific laws), though. If someone breaks into your home with the intent to felony, in my state, yes, you can use lethal force to stop the threat or apprehend the alleged felon.
  - hga 11y ago
    You can't always kill someone fleeing your just-robbed home (state-specific laws), though. In terms of law, case law is critical here, to my knowledge only Texas allows that, after a verbal warning. And like e.g. Oklahoma, I expect judges to eventually nullify that.
    - 15155 11y ago
      There are many states with justifiable homicide statutes allowing a citizen to apprehend persons whom they've observed committing felonies (or even to stop the felony-in-progress from occurring.) Have you ever tried to apprehend a violent felon? They'll typically attack you, resulting in a case for traditional self-defense.
Ao7bei3s 11y ago
Sure you should be able to defend yourself. Just not with guns. If you need guns, call the police.
- hga 11y ago
  "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." No thanks. Try to take my right of effective self-defense away (as the U.K. started doing in the '50s) and you won't like the consequences.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    You know, I actually do like the consequences: crime rate a fraction of the US and only one school shooting ever.
    - 15155 11y ago
      Hah, but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate. I'll take my much safer area plus my immediate means to self defense over your constables that are a hour out.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        > but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate. Violent crime in UK is much lower than in US. UK crime statistics are more robust than US crime stats. In particular: The US uses a different definition of violent crime. The US doesn't bother to include a bunch of crime that the UK does include. United Kingdom: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-s... “Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.) United States: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c... “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime) In the UK a push that results in no physical harm could be counted as a violent crime. That same push, resulting in the same lack of physical harm, would not be counted as a violent crime in the US. > your constables that are a hour out. That's weirdly wrong too.
Frondo 11y ago
Alleged criminals. We have a legal system that determines innocence or guilt. Before that systems assigns one or the other, they are alleged criminals. We, a civilized people, do not punish alleged criminals, because they are, by definition, not guilty of a crime.
- hga 11y ago
  We do not demand you get a jury verdict before using lethal force on someone threatening lethal force, there's no "alleged" from my viewpoint if someone is pointing a gun at me. Which, I should point out, isn't punishment. Which 15155 never said we could do, he only talked about what you can do in felonious acts, defend yourself, and about a value system that puts criminals above the law-abiding.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Alleged criminals. Not even alleged criminals; the right to self-defense usually requires that the threat comes from someone without a legal privilege for the act, but the requirements for actual criminality (particular mens rea) are not necessarily required to trigger the right to use force in self-defense, even lethal force. And this makes sense: the right to self-defense is not about the criminal culpability of the one against whom violence is permitted, its about a limit on the criminal culpability of the user of violence. Now, one can argue that in some jurisdictions the details of the rules on self-defense are drawn overly broadly, or that they are applied selectively and in a discriminatory manner. But I don't think the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat which had no legal privilege to be made, independently of whether the one making the threat met the legal standards for criminal culpability in so doing, should be even slightly controversial.
  - hga 11y ago
    the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat As long as once the threshold of lethal force is reached, all lethal force in reply until the threat is over is legitimate. Midway through it's now almost total ban on guns the U.K. made self-defense with more force than being used on you illegal, first in the courts in the '50s and then by law in the '60s. Outlawing effective self-defense then makes it that much easier to outlaw guns altogether.

by 15155 11y ago

task_queue 11y ago

Disarming/disabling != Shooting someone dead. Just because you have an easy button for homicide doesn't mean it's called for in every hostile situation. Courts agree. Try killing someone for robbing your house.

Nadya 11y ago
Fantasy land != Reality There is no such thing as shooting to disable. You always aim for center of mass and if you do not feel threatened enough to shoot to kill then you shouldn't be shooting at all. Now the caveat to this is if you shot an intruder and they're still alive, but now injured to the degree where you can safely disarm them and keep a gun drawn on them; current U.S law makes this a problem. You can get in legal trouble/sued by someone who broke into your home with a weapon intent on killing you, but only if they live. This means not only are you shooting to kill - you're now dumping an entire magazine into the person to make sure they are dead. E: To the people who downvoted, how would you disarm an intruder with a gun? Ask them politely to put the weapon down? Run at them with a baseball bat (and risk getting shot)? Or maybe shoot them in the arm or leg? Where major arteries are and the shot is still likely to be fatal and also has a higher chance of missing entirely. Life isn't Call of Duty and shots to the legs/arm don't just "injure", they kill. So I'll repeat myself: there is no such thing as shooting to disarm or disable in real life. Only in fantasy first-person-shooter land.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  A shot to the hand or the leg will kill you far slower than a shot to the chest though, and will be much easier to patch up.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    If you hit the brachial or femoral artery they can bleed out within minutes. If you puncture a lung they can still survive. It all depends on where they get hit. Many people live from potentially fatal areas being hit and others bleed out from non-fatal regions being hit. In either case, their survival puts you in legal trouble under current law. You should be shooting to kill if you feel deadly force is justified. If your intent is not to kill, then deadly force was not justified. Good luck aiming for a hand. I advise you go to a firing range and see how often you can hit the arm of a moving target without taking time to aim (remember: taking time to aim = you are now the one being shot). You'll have fractions of a second to get someone in your sights and take the shot. It'll cost $30-40 to use a range, rent a gun, and buy ammunition for an hour. You'll leave with a more informed opinion of how operating a firearm works. [0] https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      I know you can't possibly accurately hit someones extremities, never made that claim either. My post was in response to you making it sound like wounds to the extremities would be equally likely to kill as wounds to the center of mass, which is definitely not true. And thanks, I've already got a range membership.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        My point is you're far less likely to even hit the hand. Aiming for it would be the worst decision you could make when your life is on the line and depends on you actually hitting and disabling the threat. My point was you should never shoot to harm, only to kill. That means no hand shots. Period. Regardless of the chances of a fatally wounding shot. My point - furthermore - was that it isn't a guaranteed "disabling" shot. It's still possible to kill. The thought of "shoot to disable" is a misinformed thought educated on nothing but Hollywood movies and video games.
15155 11y ago
> Try killing someone for robbing your house. In most jurisdictions this is completely legal under most circumstances. You can't always kill someone fleeing your just-robbed home (state-specific laws), though. If someone breaks into your home with the intent to felony, in my state, yes, you can use lethal force to stop the threat or apprehend the alleged felon.
- hga 11y ago
  You can't always kill someone fleeing your just-robbed home (state-specific laws), though. In terms of law, case law is critical here, to my knowledge only Texas allows that, after a verbal warning. And like e.g. Oklahoma, I expect judges to eventually nullify that.
  - 15155 11y ago
    There are many states with justifiable homicide statutes allowing a citizen to apprehend persons whom they've observed committing felonies (or even to stop the felony-in-progress from occurring.) Have you ever tried to apprehend a violent felon? They'll typically attack you, resulting in a case for traditional self-defense.

Ao7bei3s 11y ago

Sure you should be able to defend yourself. Just not with guns. If you need guns, call the police.

hga 11y ago
"When seconds count, the police are minutes away." No thanks. Try to take my right of effective self-defense away (as the U.K. started doing in the '50s) and you won't like the consequences.
- pjc50 11y ago
  You know, I actually do like the consequences: crime rate a fraction of the US and only one school shooting ever.
  - 15155 11y ago
    Hah, but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate. I'll take my much safer area plus my immediate means to self defense over your constables that are a hour out.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate. Violent crime in UK is much lower than in US. UK crime statistics are more robust than US crime stats. In particular: The US uses a different definition of violent crime. The US doesn't bother to include a bunch of crime that the UK does include. United Kingdom: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-s... “Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.) United States: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c... “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime) In the UK a push that results in no physical harm could be counted as a violent crime. That same push, resulting in the same lack of physical harm, would not be counted as a violent crime in the US. > your constables that are a hour out. That's weirdly wrong too.

Frondo 11y ago

Alleged criminals. We have a legal system that determines innocence or guilt. Before that systems assigns one or the other, they are alleged criminals. We, a civilized people, do not punish alleged criminals, because they are, by definition, not guilty of a crime.

hga 11y ago
We do not demand you get a jury verdict before using lethal force on someone threatening lethal force, there's no "alleged" from my viewpoint if someone is pointing a gun at me. Which, I should point out, isn't punishment. Which 15155 never said we could do, he only talked about what you can do in felonious acts, defend yourself, and about a value system that puts criminals above the law-abiding.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Alleged criminals. Not even alleged criminals; the right to self-defense usually requires that the threat comes from someone without a legal privilege for the act, but the requirements for actual criminality (particular mens rea) are not necessarily required to trigger the right to use force in self-defense, even lethal force. And this makes sense: the right to self-defense is not about the criminal culpability of the one against whom violence is permitted, its about a limit on the criminal culpability of the user of violence. Now, one can argue that in some jurisdictions the details of the rules on self-defense are drawn overly broadly, or that they are applied selectively and in a discriminatory manner. But I don't think the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat which had no legal privilege to be made, independently of whether the one making the threat met the legal standards for criminal culpability in so doing, should be even slightly controversial.
- hga 11y ago
  the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat As long as once the threshold of lethal force is reached, all lethal force in reply until the threat is over is legitimate. Midway through it's now almost total ban on guns the U.K. made self-defense with more force than being used on you illegal, first in the courts in the '50s and then by law in the '60s. Outlawing effective self-defense then makes it that much easier to outlaw guns altogether.