USA Gun Ban... You Have to at Least Respect Their Opinions.

[wayfarer]

3 Strikes law.

I am crude here but if I make a mistake in my Job I pay fo it. Every mechanic has more accountability. Though again I'm Off Topic again. I just want to bring across the obvious injustice.

[e7th04sh]

Just because someone is trespassing on your property/home does not give you the right to shoot them. If you that he's threatening you with a weapon then you could try firing (again, it depends on a weapon). Generally if there is a chance of you or someone else dying then you can shoot and use the defence of 'self defence'.

Are we talking about law, ethic or practice now?

You seem to imply that during actual confrontation with another human i can only use means that can cause no more harm to enemy, than he is willing/risking to cause myself. I am not going to buy this axiom blindfolded. I have thought of this carefully and i am prepared for a lengthy discussion, but let's not be too hasty. Let's generalize it - the criminal temporarily loses these rights, which he intents to/did violate. This is no more justice or ethics, but a game or joke. Absurd. You can kill a murderer in self-defense, but you must do it without taking any of their possessions, since he did not intent to take any of yours.

OK, let's talk specifically about the issue for a while - you can only cause criminal as much harm, as he shows that he intents to cause you. Nice in theory, but applied, this would give great advantage to criminals. The law-abiding citizen cannot respond with "unjustified means", and the criminal can only reveal their intent to use certain level of violence, when/if he decides to.

Let's just add that i am all for punishing people for a crime of cruel or unreasonable retaliation, but this is not a priority for me - the "victims" here would be those who do not respect the rules of society in the first place, and as such are less deserving justice.

[Herduk]

So if i'm drunken and i'm enter your property for error, you can shot me down? Who is the victim?

[Velensk]

My post may reflect my opinion that there are very few good reasons to drink.

You are both victims. Herduck is victim of a case of a case of over-caution and Joram is victim of some moron entering his house without announcing a reason. The former fault is inherantly bad but understandable the second could be utterly harmless or incredibly harmful which is the situation most likely to cause over caution.

[artisticdude]

If the drunk has forced his way into your house violently and is threatening your or someone else's life, you have all the right in the world to protect whoever's life is in danger, by whatever means you have available. Preferably not such drastic measures as shooting him down, but it may be necessary or unavoidable in certain scenarios. If, on the other hand, it was just some intoxicated person who had entered your house and and bumbled about without intending violence, shooting him is not necessary.

[e7th04sh]

Nice in theory, but applied, this would give great advantage to criminals. The law-abiding citizen cannot respond with "unjustified means", and the criminal can only reveal their intent to use certain level of violence, when/if he decides to.

Let's just add that i am all for punishing people for a crime of cruel or unreasonable retaliation, but this is not a priority for me - the "victims" here would be those who do not respect the rules of society in the first place, and as such are less deserving justice.

So if i'm drunken and i'm enter your property for error, you can shot me down? Who is the victim?

I would like you to prove that this conclusion can be drawn form my post in a logical way, before I make any further comment on this. And when we're at it, please make sure to do that every next time, if you go so far away from what I wrote and imply it's my opinion. Sorry for this kind of attitude on my side, but I don't feel like handling unnecessary stress that is always produced by conversations like that one, unless every participant shows a lot of effort and good will.

[johndh]

Has anybody considered less-lethal ammunition? If you break into my house, a 12-gauge rubber shot to the chest will take you out and break your ribs, and you will almost certainly not be getting up from it. Whether you were drunk and came in by accident (although it's kinda hard to "accidentally" kick down a door) or came in with malicious intent, you've learned your lesson and possibly a brief stay in the local hospital. That kind assuages a lot of the problems with accidental discharge as well.

This isn't really about the laws per se, but for all the people who don't want to be armed because they're afraid of killing the wrong person (or object to killing for any reason).

[Pentarctagon]

of course not, why would they have bought a gun if they couldn't defend themselves with it?

[Zachron]

He he, what I would personally do is, load my shotgun, rifle, or pistol with 2 or 3 "less-than-lethal" rounds, and fill the rest of the clip or cartridge with lethals. This would allow me to non-lethally deter an assailant, yet still deal decisively with a relentless foe.

[johndh]

He he, what I would personally do is, load my shotgun, rifle, or pistol with 2 or 3 "less-than-lethal" rounds, and fill the rest of the clip or cartridge with lethals. This would allow me to non-lethally deter an assailant, yet still deal decisively with a relentless foe.

Indeed. If it's not over after two or three rounds of Mr. Niceguy, then it's time for lead.

[wayfarer]

Duh sure with broken ribs and or compressed ribcage he can call himself lucky to breath without external help.

[e7th04sh]

When it comes to self defense, less-lethal amunition is a thing i would consider. However, as i long time ago wrote in this thread, owning a gun is not justified by only self-defense. A possibility to exert violence is most primitive, and thus most reliable kind of power. If the state's power resorts are holding a de facto monopoly on possibility of use of any kind of effective violence, it's a risky situation in which freedom of people relies only on the good will of authorities. This is, for me, more important even if less obvious at this moment reason why people should be able, and even obliged to own and know how to handle guns.

[Herduk]

So if i'm drunken and i'm enter your property for error, you can shot me down? Who is the victim?

I would like you to prove that this conclusion can be drawn form my post in a logical way, before I make any further comment on this. And when we're at it, please make sure to do that every next time, if you go so far away from what I wrote and imply it's my opinion. Sorry for this kind of attitude on my side, but I don't feel like handling unnecessary stress that is always produced by conversations like that one, unless every participant shows a lot of effort and good will.

My previous post, in italian, is called "iperbole". It's a type of example that someone is exagerating for the porpouse of show some weakness in a logic.

You are saying (i simplify for myself): if i cannot use a gun in first place, a criminal get an advantage. (first piece of my quote from your reply).
I'm saying that using for first a weapon is simply a way to kill someone without a reason or for a wrong evaluation.

A drunken in your garden (maybe you forget the fence open too!) is so dangerous that you need to kill him? I don't think so.
I don't believe that to shoot everything that move (another exageration) is something cleaver to do.
As i don't think that give weapon to everyone is so safe.
I don't know USA law, but how many check are done on a gun buyer? And are they made on regular basis?

I mean: I the next-door boy, without a problem and i buy a gun.
In 2 years i become addicted to alcool and i'm starting to have some psychic problem.
Someone check me or i'm always free to use my gun without any control?

I found this a real problem, more than criminals.

Btw, check how many children are dead last year killed by parents' guns.


I'm sorry if my posts seems too harsh, rude, quick ( i don't know how to name them). I didn't want to start a flame or be a troll, simply i (wrongly) guessed that an "iperbole" worked well in english like in italian.

[thespaceinvader]

When it comes to self defense, less-lethal amunition is a thing i would consider. However, as i long time ago wrote in this thread, owning a gun is not justified by only self-defense. A possibility to exert violence is most primitive, and thus most reliable kind of power. If the state's power resorts are holding a de facto monopoly on possibility of use of any kind of effective violence, it's a risky situation in which freedom of people relies only on the good will of authorities. This is, for me, more important even if less obvious at this moment reason why people should be able, and even obliged to own and know how to handle guns.

For me, this is the most singularly hilarious argument in the whole debate. The governments of the world have cruise missiles, nuclear arms, tanks, hypersonic planes, standing armies, submarines, aircraft carriers, field guns... Not to mention helicopter gunships, assault rifles, easy access to large amounts of high explosives, body armour, logistics and communications... You really, really think that owning a handgun will let you stand up to a modern military force?

Unless a significant proportion of those same authorities joined whatever rebellion or defence of your rights you might attempt use your gun in, your would die. Quickly. The same would be true if every citizen were armed with the sort of weapons available easily to private owners.

[Velensk]

Although I agree that the general argument is poor, it is not as ridicules as you might think.

If there was a general rebellion throughout the states then the military would be heavily outnumbered (even assuming that somehow none of them defect). It would also be limited in the arsenal it could bring to bare unless it is willing to torch it's own cities and infrastructure (which isn't all that unlikely in the case of a wide spread rebellion). If the government cannot win without killing hundreds of millions of its own people or destroying its own cities then it will lose either way. Assuming the people in charge are sensible (which is unlikely considering the scale of this hypothetical rebellion) they would be forced to surrender. They might not be forced to surrender to an unarmed rebellion they can put down without killing many (or any) people.

That beings said, the proposed scenario is unlikely and would be very bad for all involved if it were to occur. The whole point of democracy is that you can wait out the poor leaders. In order to get a rebellion of that scale somebody would need to break the system badly.