IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Should Americans have right to self defense with a gun?
No 8 21.62%
Yes 29 78.38%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 13th September 2022, 05:22 PM   #41
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,380
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
From what I understand its very difficult to aim for someone's arm or leg, or non-vital organ. The easiest thing to do when in danger it to aim for center mass, shoot, then run away.
Unless you can't run away, or don't want to run away. A violent aggressor shouldn't have the privilege of taking over your home, just because he'll threaten your life if you don't leave.

A vote against lethal force in self defense is a vote for warlordism.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 05:28 PM   #42
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Unless you can't run away, or don't want to run away. A violent aggressor shouldn't have the privilege of taking over your home, just because he'll threaten your life if you don't leave.

A vote against lethal force in self defense is a vote for warlordism.
It goes without saying you are not required to flee your own home or car. Even the most Liberal states have a Castle Doctrine stating you have no duty to retreat your home or car when threatened with deadly force. You have the right to use force to stop a burglary of your home. You have the right to use deadly force to stop such burglar if they are armed or are using armed/unarmed deadly force against you, or attempting a kidnapping, rape or arson.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 05:30 PM   #43
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Unless you can't run away, or don't want to run away. A violent aggressor shouldn't have the privilege of taking over your home, just because he'll threaten your life if you don't leave.

A vote against lethal force in self defense is a vote for warlordism.
Hmm, I misread part of your post.

If you can safely flee, you should be required to flee. We should not be encouraging people to get into fights, even if self defense is involved. But if someone has a gun its hard to "safely" flee.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 06:08 PM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,380
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Hmm, I misread part of your post.

If you can safely flee, you should be required to flee. We should not be encouraging people to get into fights, even if self defense is involved. But if someone has a gun its hard to "safely" flee.
Why do you give the aggressor so much privilege, so much benefit? Why do you require their victim to take on all the risk, to pay all the costs? I'm sorry, but to me this just seems obscene.

If you believe it is moral for me to stand my ground in my home, why isn't it moral for me to stand my ground on the street? I have the right to be there. Why should anyone have the right to drive me away simply by threatening my life if I don't comply? Why should their right to safety, their right to walk freely and unmolested, be greater than mine?

Is it because they initiated the violence? If I started it, if I ran down the sidewalk brandishing an axe or a gun and threatening to kill anyone who didn't get out of my sight, would I have the moral high ground? Would anyone who tried to fight back instead of letting me do whatever I want be in the wrong, then?

Or would they be allowed, as long as the fight was fair? If I had an axe and they had an axe, would that be okay? What if they were bigger and stronger than me, and had a greater reach? What if I were brandishing a knife, and they came at me with a shovel?

Or do they all have to run away regardless, because I called dibs on the violence so now I'm the only one entitled to use it?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 07:29 PM   #45
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Necessary killing should be seen as a virtue. People shouldn't feel guilty about doing the right thing. They shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it, either. It's not a happy thing, and it's not (usually) a cause for celebration, but it is a good thing, and it's not fair to hold it over someone like they did something wrong.
There's your problem.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 07:58 PM   #46
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
From what I understand its very difficult to aim for someone's arm or leg, or non-vital organ. The easiest thing to do when in danger it to aim for center mass, shoot, then run away.

But of course even if you are good enough to hit an arm or leg, they still may bleed to death. But honestly, that's not the fault of the victim of the crime now is it?
I am by no means suggesting that firing lead with the intention to wound is by any means a good idea. I'm saying it's preferable to shooting to kill. I'd prefer any of a dozen other options before resorting to the nuclear option.

There have been maybe 8 or 9 times I could have used lethal force against someone who appeared to be "imminently about to cause death/grievous injury" to myself or others. Probably I would not have been charged, or at least got off on self defense. But each time,we all walked away without a scratch, because the Reaper is rarely as close as a lot of people think he is.

Quote:
Why are we concerned about a criminal trying to rape, kidnap or rob someone, dying from his injuries? Why should we care? They are the bad guy, remember?
And you are the good guy, remember? It's not about his punk ass or how valuable he is. It's about you and the kind of person you are.

A rapist is not likely to try and continue a rape with you standing there. A kidnapper is not going to nap the kid in your presence. Even these far flung scenarios are not likely to lead to a shootout, unless you choose to make it one.

Quote:
Mind you, I believe if you can safely & effectively flee the bad guy, I believe you should legally be required to do so. But if you can't safely do so, and you do have a gun, blast away. I feel no pity for bad people.
A duty to retreat is noble, I guess. Doesn't feel right to have to retreat from your own home though, and if others are in the home with you it's not really an option.

What would your take be on non-lethal rounds, like wood or rocksalt? Enough to drop, but generally not be fatal (allowing that anything could be inadvertently fatal). Or does it have to be lead?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 08:07 PM   #47
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I am by no means suggesting that firing lead with the intention to wound is by any means a good idea. I'm saying it's preferable to shooting to kill. I'd prefer any of a dozen other options before resorting to the nuclear option.

There have been maybe 8 or 9 times I could have used lethal force against someone who appeared to be "imminently about to cause death/grievous injury" to myself or others. Probably I would not have been charged, or at least got off on self defense. But each time,we all walked away without a scratch, because the Reaper is rarely as close as a lot of people think he is.



And you are the good guy, remember? It's not about his punk ass or how valuable he is. It's about you and the kind of person you are.

A rapist is not likely to try and continue a rape with you standing there. A kidnapper is not going to nap the kid in your presence. Even these far flung scenarios are not likely to lead to a shootout, unless you choose to make it one.



A duty to retreat is noble, I guess. Doesn't feel right to have to retreat from your own home though, and if others are in the home with you it's not really an option.

What would your take be on non-lethal rounds, like wood or rocksalt? Enough to drop, but generally not be fatal (allowing that anything could be inadvertently fatal). Or does it have to be lead?
You can just ask the perp to hold it right there, then make that decision in a committee of yourself and family, then find and load the decided ammunition as needed, then shoot the perp with it.

Easy.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 08:18 PM   #48
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You can just ask the perp to hold it right there, then make that decision in a committee of yourself and family, then find and load the decided ammunition as needed, then shoot the perp with it.

Easy.
A gun available for self defense can pre loaded with lethal or non lethal ammo. It's nothing to think about at the time. What are you talking about?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 09:13 PM   #49
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
A more egregious example of the wild west attitude to defense in America...

Some years back a retired dude in Texas by the name of Horn was on the blower with 911. A couple of guys were robbing a neighbor's house while no one was home there. Horn told the operator he was going to confront the guys with his gun, and was told repeatedly to not do that. But after a bit of back and forth old Horn went outside and killed both, with one shot in the back, as I recall.

I seem to remember a charge and maybe trial, with acquittal. Very hazy on that.

What really struck me was the intention to kill people over mere robbery of someone else's property. A deadly violent reaction to a non-violent act that did not directly concern him. Vigellantism, pure and simple.

An example of the kind of tragedy that becomes all too easy when a gun is ready to hand.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 09:31 PM   #50
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,586
You should be allowed to defend Yourself or other people with guns - not property.

A crime that causes damage that can be undone with money it's never worth a human life.
__________________
"The only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 05:49 AM   #51
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Kind of silly to have a gun for defense, if it's not readily available for that purpose.

As for safety, part of the right is the right of each individual to decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk.
That might be a valid point if the risk was only to the individual making the choice. (Which I already pointed out)
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 06:05 AM   #52
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
A gun available for self defense can pre loaded with lethal or non lethal ammo. It's nothing to think about at the time. What are you talking about?
But what if you needed lethal ammo and all you had loaded was non-lethal? More deadly to throw the gun at the perp, yeah?

Or vice versa. Lethal loaded but only non-lethal needed. You choose either not to shoot (so why bring a gun at all), or severely harm or kill some trivial perp and become an unnecessarily vicious monster.

Basic question: How do you know what you will need to load in advance? You don't know.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 06:10 AM   #53
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Every state in the Union believes that human beings have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, against deadly force and even to stop arson, kidnapping or rape whether or not the criminal is using a gun or even a deadly weapon.

As I have mentioned before I believe there should be strong regulations when it comes to who can possess a gun and I do believe our background check system should be able to look into mental health records but beyond that I do believe we have a right to defend ourselves with deadly force including with the use of firearms.
The conversation moved on before I had a chance to reply but…

My point, and the problem I have, is this should be two different questions.

It’s pretty common that people’s position is some version of “I have the right to self-defense, therefore I should have a right to own/carry a gun”.

Should you have a right to self-defense – yes. There is room for discussion on the details. Even if we come to an agreement on what circumstances warrant self-defense, reasonable force etc., that says nothing about having a gun at hand.

Should you have the right to have/carry a gun, just in case you need to defend yourself, is a different question.
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 06:30 AM   #54
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
If you go to a firearm self defense training it's likely that one of the first things the instructor will tell you is that you'll want to avoid having to shoot anyone.

It will be the usual lecture . . .secure your home. . .don't go to dangerous places. . .don't flip people off when you are driving around. . .learn to deescalate the situation.

The post shooting legal ramifications to the defender can be costly and psychologically draining. If the shooting wasn't justified you can easily end up on the wrong end of a criminal or civil legal action.

You might also be told that a less than lethal method of stopping your attacker, like pepper spray, is ok if you can manage it. The problem with these methods is that they often don't stop determined attackers. I have read that about a third of the attackers sprayed with pepper spray will charge in the direction of the sprayer, even if they have been temporary blinded by the spray.

Every once in a while somebody shows up at a firearms self defense training just itching to learn how and when to shoot some bad guy. They invariably get a dressing down from the instructor and sometimes get thrown out of the course.

The courses also cover (with the usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer) the law regarding self defense.

Massad Ayoob is one of the best trainers in this subject area https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe_G3HDKFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4PS_8R5IE&t=2151s
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 06:42 AM   #55
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
But what if you needed lethal ammo and all you had loaded was non-lethal? More deadly to throw the gun at the perp, yeah?

Or vice versa. Lethal loaded but only non-lethal needed. You choose either not to shoot (so why bring a gun at all), or severely harm or kill some trivial perp and become an unnecessarily vicious monster.

Basic question: How do you know what you will need to load in advance? You don't know.
Basic answer: a civilian doesn't ever need to load with lethal ammo, unless his intent is to kill. It's not that complicated.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 06:48 AM   #56
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
"Byrna Technologies Non-Lethal Self Defense Un-Gun!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZIejg3qPso
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 07:08 AM   #57
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
If you go to a firearm self defense training it's likely that one of the first things the instructor will tell you is that you'll want to avoid having to shoot anyone.

It will be the usual lecture . . .secure your home. . .don't go to dangerous places. . .don't flip people off when you are driving around. . .learn to deescalate the situation.

The post shooting legal ramifications to the defender can be costly and psychologically draining. If the shooting wasn't justified you can easily end up on the wrong end of a criminal or civil legal action.

You might also be told that a less than lethal method of stopping your attacker, like pepper spray, is ok if you can manage it. The problem with these methods is that they often don't stop determined attackers. I have read that about a third of the attackers sprayed with pepper spray will charge in the direction of the sprayer, even if they have been temporary blinded by the spray.

Every once in a while somebody shows up at a firearms self defense training just itching to learn how and when to shoot some bad guy. They invariably get a dressing down from the instructor and sometimes get thrown out of the course.

The courses also cover (with the usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer) the law regarding self defense.

Massad Ayoob is one of the best trainers in this subject area https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe_G3HDKFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4PS_8R5IE&t=2151s
That's the problem. A brief and generic lip servicing before cracking his knuckles and saying "ok, with those platitudes out of the way, let's get on with killing people".

If you guys are dead set on finding an excuse to kill, that's fine. Just drop the euphemisms and own it. Bullets are for killing.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 07:38 AM   #58
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's the problem. A brief and generic lip servicing before cracking his knuckles and saying "ok, with those platitudes out of the way, let's get on with killing people".

If you guys are dead set on finding an excuse to kill, that's fine. Just drop the euphemisms and own it. Bullets are for killing.
Well, that's not how it is at all. Self defense firearm training is serious and sobering. But learning how to use the gun is taught.

I have a couple of friends and acquaintance who have taught firearms classes and they all talk about the guy who shows up with his head screwed on wrong.

I was in a class once and a guy wanted know how he can legally shoot a guy who was stealing his tomatoes. He got a stern talking to by the instructor and he wasn't in the class after the 10:30 break. So he didn't get a carry and conceal license that day.

On the plus side everyone in the class got a good dose of "gun ownership and use requires responsible behavior".

On the negative side. . .this guy just walked out into the world and may well have showed up at another carry and conceal class with the same bad attitude but kept his lip buttoned.

Last edited by arayder; 14th September 2022 at 07:42 AM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 08:05 AM   #59
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
Well, that's not how it is at all. Self defense firearm training is serious and sobering. But learning how to use the gun is taught.

I have a couple of friends and acquaintance who have taught firearms classes and they all talk about the guy who shows up with his head screwed on wrong.

I was in a class once and a guy wanted know how he can legally shoot a guy who was stealing his tomatoes. He got a stern talking to by the instructor and he wasn't in the class after the 10:30 break. So he didn't get a carry and conceal license that day.

On the plus side everyone in the class got a good dose of "gun ownership and use requires responsible behavior".

On the negative side. . .this guy just walked out into the world and may well have showed up at another carry and conceal class with the same bad attitude but kept his lip buttoned.
While I think teaching those ideas is a good thing the whole scenario kind of demonstrates that it is not actually required. His behavior may have caused him some minor inconvenience but no real barrier to his plans. Not to mention all the places where there are no training or licensing requirements and the considerable effort to do away with any that exist.
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 08:22 AM   #60
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
While I think teaching those ideas is a good thing the whole scenario kind of demonstrates that it is not actually required. His behavior may have caused him some minor inconvenience but no real barrier to his plans. Not to mention all the places where there are no training or licensing requirements and the considerable effort to do away with any that exist.
I have thought abut this guy from time to time over the years and I have hoped he was just being an arse.

He may have gotten the message from the instructor and realized you can't shoot people for picking the tomatoes off your plantings.

On the other hand the guy acted so badly it's possible he left the class with the idea that this carry and conceal license thing is a scam and he's just carry any way, any time, anywhere he wanted.

In my state, Kentucky, the laws are now so lax that he can now carry without a license, so your point is well taken.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 08:30 AM   #61
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
The conversation moved on before I had a chance to reply but…

My point, and the problem I have, is this should be two different questions.

It’s pretty common that people’s position is some version of “I have the right to self-defense, therefore I should have a right to own/carry a gun”.

Should you have a right to self-defense – yes. There is room for discussion on the details. Even if we come to an agreement on what circumstances warrant self-defense, reasonable force etc., that says nothing about having a gun at hand.

Should you have the right to have/carry a gun, just in case you need to defend yourself, is a different question.
I dont really see a difference between defending yourself with deadly force with a gun, a rock, a knife, a baseball bat or a hammer. All can cause death very easily.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 08:34 AM   #62
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,606
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you believe it is moral for me to stand my ground in my home, why isn't it moral for me to stand my ground on the street? I have the right to be there. Why should anyone have the right to drive me away simply by threatening my life if I don't comply? Why should their right to safety, their right to walk freely and unmolested, be greater than mine?

Is it because they initiated the violence? If I started it, if I ran down the sidewalk brandishing an axe or a gun and threatening to kill anyone who didn't get out of my sight, would I have the moral high ground? Would anyone who tried to fight back instead of letting me do whatever I want be in the wrong, then?

And this is exactly the kind of all-or-nothing nonsense that makes it so hard to have sensible discussions about violence with certain Americans.

You do realize we have entire organizations dedicated to dealing with people who "run down the sidewalk brandishing an axe or a gun and threatening to kill anyone who didn't get out of their sight", don't you? The correct response is to call the cops and have the guy arrested. Sure, if he starts chasing you, then maybe you should shoot them, but then, if they're chasing you, you've already met the burden of a "Duty to retreat". No one with any sense would complain about you shooting a guy after he's chased you down the road with an axe.

But if he's just standing there raving and waving an axe, and not following people around? Get out of the area and call the cops. This ain't rocket surgery.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 09:51 AM   #63
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
I have lots of liberal friends. But I also am a gun owner and go to a local range on a regular basis where I have made a lot of "2nd amendment" friends. We shoot together in a pistol league. After years shooting together we are buds. They all know I am a liberal. I think they figure I am one of the good ones.

Most of them carry on a regular basis.

There isn't a one of them who takes the idea of shooting someone in self defense as lightly as some folks here seem to think some gun owners do.

They all know how to de-escalate confrontations. They are courteous to everyone they meet (at least in my observation) and they don't look for trouble or revel in the idea of shooting somebody.

Now it may be that I have good judgement and have simply picked out good men and women to befriend. . .and that there are a boat load of scummy gun toters I just haven't meet.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 10:07 AM   #64
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
I have lots of liberal friends. But I also am a gun owner and go to a local range on a regular basis where I have made a lot of "2nd amendment" friends. We shoot together in a pistol league. After years shooting together we are buds. They all know I am a liberal. I think they figure I am one of the good ones.

Most of them carry on a regular basis.

There isn't a one of them who takes the idea of shooting someone in self defense as lightly as some folks here seem to think some gun owners do.
That's exactly, precisely the problem. They are taking the idea of being able to shoot someone deadly seriously. So seriously, that they are investing significant time and money to positively prepare for the opportunity.

Ask them, if you get the chance, what other defensive measures they invest similar time and money on. If the answer is "nothing else even comes close", then "defense" is not their target, so to speak.

Quote:
They all know how to de-escalate confrontations. They are courteous to everyone they meet (at least in my observation) and they don't look for trouble or revel in the idea of shooting somebody.

Now it may be that I have good judgement and have simply picked out good men and women to befriend. . .and that there are a boat load of scummy gun toters I just haven't meet.
Agreed. The more scummy ones aren't going to be found behaving responsibly on a range.

One of my uncle's is the 2A wet dream: ex Marine, county firearms instructor, competition marksman, the works. He is also an avid Trumpster, and openly relishes squaring off against antifa on the streets. I have very good reason to fear him when we find ourselves on opposite sides of the barricades. While he is not looking for trouble either, he welcomes anyone bringing it. That's a tough needle to thread.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 10:30 AM   #65
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's exactly, precisely the problem. They are taking the idea of being able to shoot someone deadly seriously. So seriously, that they are investing significant time and money to positively prepare for the opportunity.

Ask them, if you get the chance, what other defensive measures they invest similar time and money on. If the answer is "nothing else even comes close", then "defense" is not their target, so to speak.
I honestly don't know their exact ratio of guns to door locks to security cameras. But the people there I have talked to have put a lot of non-gun money into making their homes secure. But these folks live in the country and are too smart to leave their safety up to just their shooting and gun handling skills.

But they love to shoot and have frequently made gun purchases that remind me of those made by the sports car nut who lived down the street from me when I was a kid.

Who really needs new wheels for the Vett? Who really needs that surplus Russian rifle?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
One of my uncle's is the 2A wet dream: ex Marine, county firearms instructor, competition marksman, the works. He is also an avid Trumpster, and openly relishes squaring off against antifa on the streets. I have very good reason to fear him when we find ourselves on opposite sides of the barricades. While he is not looking for trouble either, he welcomes anyone bringing it. That's a tough needle to thread.
Yikes! Makes me think we can pick our (range) friends, but not our families.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:06 AM   #66
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I dont really see a difference between defending yourself with deadly force with a gun, a rock, a knife, a baseball bat or a hammer. All can cause death very easily.
But most other tools will likely raise a sweat during use, and puts you in arm's reach of the other guy. The gun obviates these inconveniences. Indeed, its near effortless destruction at a distance makes for a heady, seductive feeling of power. Do all have the balanced psyche to wield it responsibly?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:29 AM   #67
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
When a society has bought into the notion that everyone can and should be packing heat, then it is only bringing about that which it ostensibly seeks to avoid. The stats are indisputable; just having a gun about increases the chance of being shot.

Trying to keep with the criminals is an arms race that only results in the criminals being more likely to start blasting first. As I've said before, an armed society is not a polite society; it's a paranoid society.

A whole nation has been bamboozled by an industry that wants to make sales. And is too foolish to look beyond its borders to see that a more sensible approach results in far fewer deaths at the hands of criminals *AND* family simply due to less widespread gun ownership.

One could be forgiven for thinking the gun to be an insidious invention of Satan. A device proffered for 'protection' but whose alluring power leads to more evil and death for the Dark One's harvest of souls.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:33 AM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,380
The obvious solution is to declare a self-evident right to self defense with guns - if you can find one ready to hand - while categorically asserting that nobody has a right to a gun in the first place. You can mouth whatever platitudes you want about the right to use a gun, as long as you establish that actually having a gun is a privilege reserved for people who can be trusted to never ever have the gun in a ready-to-use condition in any scenario where they might want to use it without planning a day in advance.

"Of course you can use a gun to defend yourself! As long as you're on the government-approved shooting range, you've checked your gun out of the locker at the range where you're required to keep it, and you haven't yet fired all three of the bullets you're allowed to have with you at the firing station at any one time. But come to think of it, why haven't you fired all three of your bullets? Were you holding one back in case you had an opportunity to kill someone today? Is that why you came down to the range? In the hope you'd have a chance to kill someone?"
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 14th September 2022 at 11:35 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:44 AM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
When a society has bought into the notion that everyone can and should be packing heat
This is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people who don't want to have a gun should be forced to have a gun.

Quote:
The stats are indisputable; just having a gun about increases the chance of being shot.
They are very disputable, because you're making a classic causation vs correlation mistake. Gun owners are a self-selecting group, and often precisely because they're at higher risk of getting shot whether or not they have a gun (for example, drug dealers). That statistic says absolutely nothing about whether any individual's risk of being shot, or more importantly, having SOMETHING really bad happen to them (getting stabbed to death isn't inherently preferable), will increase or decrease if they get a gun. Statistics and probability don't actually work the way you imply, even though many people are under the misapprehension that they do.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:46 AM   #70
arayder
Master Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But most other tools will likely raise a sweat during use, and puts you in arm's reach of the other guy. The gun obviates these inconveniences. Indeed, its near effortless destruction at a distance makes for a heady, seductive feeling of power. Do all have the balanced psyche to wield it responsibly?
No, everybody does not have the sense to use firearms responsibly.

But, especially since the invention of the revolver hand guns have been an equalizer for individuals attacked by larger people or groups of people.

Years ago my wife and I nearly got cornered by a group of young criminals in a parking garage. We were stupid to put ourselves in that position. We just barely made it to the car in time to get in and then made it clear we now had a big battering ram we would use if necessary.

Today my wife would not make it to the car in time. We never park a car in that sort of garage anymore. And I now go get the car and pick her up from a secure hotel lobby or the like. And I am almost always armed when with her. I say "almost" because some places don't allow firearms in their buildings and I have to stow the piece in the safe in the car.

Like 'em or hate 'em I use them to protect myself and my wife.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:52 AM   #71
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,584
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
True, but there is also an impact on the safety of those around you. Seem like that should be a consideration in determining your rights vs. theirs.
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Clearly you are not an american.
The very crux of American individual rights is “my rights supersede your rights”. In the context of individual rights in the USA social responsibility is an alien concept.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:53 AM   #72
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,606
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people who don't want to have a gun should be forced to have a gun.


Well, there's these guys....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 11:59 AM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,380
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Haha oh wow. Did you actually read your cite? People who don't want to have a gun are explicitly exempted.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 01:03 PM   #74
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Haha oh wow. Did you actually read your cite? People who don't want to have a gun are explicitly exempted.
Well, "conscientious objectors based on belief or religious doctrine" are exempted, not just people who don't want one.

More interesting in that law is that it is based on the need for emergency management of the city. Seems like heads of households are manditorily conscripted into whatever the town feels they should shoot at?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 02:13 PM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,380
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Well, "conscientious objectors based on belief or religious doctrine" are exempted, not just people who don't want one.
The two concepts are synonymous. "I conscientiously object to having a gun because of my beliefs" is just the legal version of "I don't want one." It's clear the law is not an example of the thing Zig is referring to.

Quote:
More interesting in that law is that it is based on the need for emergency management of the city. Seems like heads of households are manditorily conscripted into whatever the town feels they should shoot at?
It's pretty obvious it's a stunt law.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 02:29 PM   #76
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Necessary killing should be seen as a virtue. People shouldn't feel guilty about doing the right thing. They shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it, either. It's not a happy thing, and it's not (usually) a cause for celebration, but it is a good thing, and it's not fair to hold it over someone like they did something wrong.
It's often treated more than just a necessity and celebrated, which leads to unnecessary toxicity.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 03:00 PM   #77
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 63,896
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You should be allowed to defend Yourself or other people with guns - not property.

A crime that causes damage that can be undone with money it's never worth a human life.
I'm not so sure. In general, a human life is worth more than property. But if a specific human contributes nothing to society and instead steals property from others, repeatedly, I have to wonder what worth that specific human life actually bears. Perhaps it would be better if they were removed from existence. Why should we tolerate parasites? They aren't going to respond to noble sentiment by changing their ways. They're going to take advantage of mercy to cause more harm to others.

I think there's only so much slack to be given before someone deserves what they get.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 03:09 PM   #78
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You should be allowed to defend Yourself or other people with guns - not property.

A crime that causes damage that can be undone with money it's never worth a human life.
Even the most Liberal states like NY allow deadly violence to prevent an arson.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 03:15 PM   #79
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Basic answer: a civilian doesn't ever need to load with lethal ammo, unless his intent is to kill. It's not that complicated.
So can it be assumed that if a civilian loads their gun with lethal ammo, their intent is to kill?

I'll refer you to Kyle Rittenhouse at this point...
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2022, 03:25 PM   #80
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
So can it be assumed that if a civilian loads their gun with lethal ammo, their intent is to kill?

I'll refer you to Kyle Rittenhouse at this point...
Well...yeah. If you load a deadly weapon with deadly ammo, your intent is to make someone dead.

Kyle did so. He went far out of his way to make preparations and create the circumstsnces to make people dead. His intent was to kill. It may have been a secondary intent (swaggering around playing army being the primary), but he put people killing rounds in his people killing weapon and waltzed out into a bunch of people that would be provoked by this, then he killed some of those people.

You have a point you'd like to get to?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.