That's What Katanas Are For

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32855934/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


Cops: Student uses sword to kill intruder
Cuts off man's hand, lacerates his upper body, police say

BALTIMORE - A Johns Hopkins University student armed with a samurai sword killed a suspected burglar in a garage behind his off-campus home early Tuesday, hours after someone broke in and stole electronics.

Some shocked neighbors said they heard bloodcurdling screams in an area just blocks from the university. Police held the student, a junior chemistry major who turns 21 on Sunday, for several hours, but no charges were filed by early afternoon, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

Around 1:20 a.m., the student heard noises behind the home and noticed a door to the garage was open, Guglielmi said. He grabbed the sword and confronted the intruder — identified by police as Donald D. Rice, 49, a habitual offender who had just been released from jail.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Rice was crouching beneath a counter, police said. The student asked him what he was doing and threatened to call police.

"When he said that, the suspect lunged at him, kind of forced the kid against the wall, and he struck him with the sword," Guglielmi said.

[...]

Wow, that's cool :2thumbsup:! Does he play STW?

[drone]

We have an official pandemic! Get the CDC going on the vaccine for Lemur's disease, stat! :beam:

[Megas Methuselah]

WOW. Honestly, I don't know what to say. :dizzy2: :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Shocking! Was the katana even registered? There's no requirement for them to be? Well, there should be. It could save up to three lives per year!

:furious3:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Well, if somebody had to die at least it was the right person.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have a friend who would have done the exact same thing, if not with his samurai sword then his crossbow, ninja stars, or various other blades...

[Papewaio]

'I've got this friend who' ... is that code for yourself?

"And remember, this is for posterity so be honest."

[Hax]

I don't see how the weapon is relevant. Most people have a baseball bat. Hell, if I'd come across a burglar in the middle of the night, the first weapon I'd use are the hockey sticks we have.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't see how the weapon is relevant. Most people have a baseball bat. Hell, if I'd come across a burglar in the middle of the night, the first weapon I'd use are the hockey sticks we have.


I think it's just that the choice of weapon was unusual for this day & age. Whatever one has at hand will do, candlestick, pipe wrench, pool cue, etc... For me, I prefer my trusty .357 mag. I'm not into that marquees of queensberry stuff when ones life is on the line.

[AlexanderSextus]

I have a gladius hispaniensis ready for any would-be intruders.

Thanx, Europa Barbarorum.

[Centurion1]

Thats how we do it in maryland :daisy:!!!!! *cocks katana*

[Husar]

I have a..a...a...uhm, I could take my cellphone hostage and threaten to drop it!

[Azathoth]

I have a plastic lightsaber and a Little Mermaid sword with the face of Ariel's father engraved in the hilt that I can dual-wield if the need arises.

[Gregoshi]

We have an official pandemic! Get the CDC going on the vaccine for Lemur's disease, stat! :beam:
I'd be laughing if this wasn't so serious. We may have to ask Tosa to set up Lemur colonies.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have a tactical route planned...

Next to the door is a knife on the hat rack, easily accesible. The hallway is narrow, so knife is best choice..

if i have to back off into the living room I have a very sharp machete hanging so I can grab it as I enter, more room for swinging there :)

I hope I never get to use it, but I want to be sure I have the option if the need arises.

Ranged weapons are for girlymen.

[drone]

I'm disappointed that the intruder's name wasn't Maynard or Zed. :no:

[Gregoshi]

Kadagar, what about the bedroom or the rest of the house? You need more layers of defense...a polearm for the top of the stairs to keep them downstairs, a spear for the upstairs hall - good thrusting weapon for that narrow space (and longer reach than a knife) and you can throw it too. Come to think of it, a cauldron of boiling oil might do better at the top of the stairs. :knight:

[Centurion1]

Kadavagar don't forget to crenallate your roof and make sure there are plenty of murder holes. :laugh4:

[Papewaio]

Meh, I'd pack the equipment for them and give them a nice cup of tea. I pay insurance for a reason. I can replace material goods at a whim, but I can't raise the dead.

Mind you I would probably keep my hands on my hickory handled axe if they wanted more then material possessions. And I'd keep the cuppa for fingerprints and DNA.

[Lemur]

I have a plastic lightsaber and a Little Mermaid sword with the face of Ariel's father engraved in the hilt that I can dual-wield if the need arises.
Dude. Hardcore. Respect.

[Reenk Roink]

Ranged weapons are for girlymen.

Fixed. Use fists! :beam:

[AlexanderSextus]

Fixed. Use fists! :beam:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=261

[Papewaio]

Gees a Lightsaber would have to do hair removal first to cut that guy down...

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I'd simply use Glamdring. :coffeenews:
.

[A Very Super Market]

I have a large piece of plumbing right in my bathroom. Sure, I need to procure a monkey wrench in order to detach it from the wall, but when I do, I'll have an unstoppable force no robber could hope to block.

[Cute Wolf]

Actually, I collect blades, daggers, and knives.... but should an intruder try to did something in my home.... I'll grab my axe first (those blades are regularly polished and cleaned... too bad to see something stained them.... :embarassed:). That axe are regularly used to butcher chickens, dogs, cats, goats......:laugh4:

[Hax]

That axe are regularly used to butcher chickens, dogs, cats, goats......:laugh4:

Yes, truly hilarious.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Does he play STW?
Hate to tell ya, but I believe the bloke is more likely to play Mount and Blade. You know it has that Easter egg Japanese arms and armour, do you not?

[Ronin]

Is that you Duncan MacLeod? :2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ranged weapons are for girlymen.

You're not a "work smarter, not harder" type, are ya? ~;p

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, truly hilarious.

Vegetarian?

[Ironside]

Vegetarian?

You eat cats and dogs?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You eat cats and dogs?

No, but he does, that's his business.

[Reenk Roink]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=261

I'm compelled to shave his shoulders... :sick:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I can't decide who's expression in that pic amuses me more...

[drone]

I can't decide who's expression in that pic amuses me more...

The guy on the left is admiring a flock of ducks that just took off.

[Reenk Roink]

I still dont understand how someone could have more hair on their upper arm and shoulders than on their forearm... :huh:

[ajaxfetish]

I still dont understand how someone could have more hair on their upper arm and shoulders than on their forearm... :huh:

It's the result of bear genetics in his pedigree.

Ajax

[Hax]

Vegetarian?

Not really the issue here. If it's to extend your own life and to feed upon the animal (which I deem unnecessary, but people do and I respect that opinion) then it's fine. If it's to derive pleasure from the suffering of a living creature, that's something else.

But yes, I'm a vegetarian.

[Beefy187]

I would have to use a Steel ruler (30 cm) and a BB gun which is broken :sweatdrop:

I have a knife which is not easily accessible and blunt which won't do much good.

Hopefully the BB gun bluff works

[Azathoth]

I would have to use a Steel ruler (30 cm) and a BB gun which is broken

I have a knife which is not easily accessible and blunt which won't do much good.

Hopefully the BB gun bluff works

Isn't it illegal to have a knife that's more than like 6 inches long in Japan unless you have permission?

[Beefy187]

Isn't it illegal to have a knife that's more than like 6 inches long in Japan unless you have permission?

It seems that way after the incident in Akihabara. Though I think only dagger knifes and stuff purely for stabbing people/ things are banned. Cooking knife is okay I hope.
The knife I have is small vegetable knife which haven't been used for years.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not really the issue here. If it's to extend your own life and to feed upon the animal (which I deem unnecessary, but people do and I respect that opinion) then it's fine.

From his comments in other threads I'm fairly sure he does eat them.

[Samurai Waki]

Meh. I'll just grab my Bernelli M2 Shotty. That would probably do the trick.

[Hax]

From his comments in other threads I'm fairly sure he does eat them.

That's not my point. There's a difference in killing something because you need it, and killing something because you like killing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's not my point. There's a difference in killing something because you need it, and killing something because you like killing.

And what leads you to assume that? From what he posted he wasn't laughing at killing animals, but chuckling at the fact that any intruder would be met with a 'tried and true' weapon.

CR

[miotas]

I thought he was laughing at the fact that he would be using a tool, rather than his deadly weapons because he doesn't want them getting dirty.

In the event of an emergency my weapon of choice would most likely be a cricket bat, or some random tool that I forgot to pack away.

[Cute Wolf]

I thought he was laughing at the fact that he would be using a tool, rather than his deadly weapons because he doesn't want them getting dirty.

In the event of an emergency my weapon of choice would most likely be a cricket bat, or some random tool that I forgot to pack away.

Right..... cleaning up those blades and get em in their rightful places on display case.....:laugh4:

[OverKnight]

Kadagar, what about the bedroom or the rest of the house? You need more layers of defense...a polearm for the top of the stairs to keep them downstairs, a spear for the upstairs hall - good thrusting weapon for that narrow space (and longer reach than a knife) and you can throw it too. Come to think of it, a cauldron of boiling oil might do better at the top of the stairs. :knight:


Wait, are we repulsing burglars or fighting zombies?

Edit: I've got a tactical baton obtained from a relative in Law Enforcement.

[Zim]

Now I'm curious. What exactly is a tactical baton? An ASP?


Wait, are we repulsing burglars or fighting zombies?

Edit: I've got a tactical baton obtained from a relative in Law Enforcement.

[Furunculus]

i'm guessing a 4x Dcell maglite should do the job, but i have easily cleanable wooden floors downstairs so the katana is appealing.

[Zim]

I have one of those maglites and they're quite handy. Not quite as useful as say a baseball or cricket bat but good enough. :yes:


i'm guessing a 4x Dcell maglite should do the job, but i have easily cleanable wooden floors downstairs so the katana is appealing.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I have a kukri.

Good stuff. :yes:

And a Ruger .357 Blackhawk. :beam:

In case of zombie attacks I have a number of gardening implements.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have an umbrella, one quick jab and he goes down.

No messy questions about lethal force either. Killing intruders isn't actually a good idea, I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet.

[Beefy187]

Wouldn't it be self defense? I mean he was a intruder after all.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Wouldn't it be self defense? I mean he was a intruder after all.

Only in countries with realistic self-defence laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wouldn't it be self defense? I mean he was a intruder after all.

If you can prove he's entering, not leaving, and you have reason to fear for your life.

Anyway, I'm extremely disturbed the cavalier attitude here and the lack of concern for human life.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Anyway, I'm extremely disturbed the cavalier attitude here and the lack of concern for human life.

They've broken into your house. By doing so they have made their own decision and are responsible for the consequences. If that involves them being shot and killed, In nations with sensible laws, the person defending should never be considered a criminal for defending with lethal force their family and property.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They've broken into your house. By doing so they have made their own decision and are responsible for the consequences. If that involves them being shot and killed, In nations with sensible laws, the person defending should never be considered a criminal for defending with lethal force their family and property.

They make their choices, and we make ours. When confronted with an intruder you can pick up a sword or a staff; that choice is yours and you have to live with the consequences.

I am willing to kill under certain circumstances, but I do not take such things lightly.

[Whacker]

They make their choices, and we make ours. When confronted with an intruder you can pick up a sword or a staff; that choice is yours and you have to live with the consequences.

Given that choice, if you pick up a staff and go after someone who's broken into your house, you are an utter fool.

Killing is indeed something never, ever to be taken lightly, but given the right circumstances one absolutely must be willing and able to make that choice to defend their family. Someone who cannot has no business having a family, IMO.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They make their choices, and we make ours. When confronted with an intruder you can pick up a sword or a staff; that choice is yours and you have to live with the consequences.

Indeed. The right to make these choices, however, should remain with the individual and not the government.


I am willing to kill under certain circumstances, but I do not take such things lightly.

None of us do, and none of us should. What we should be is willing to do so when necessary and just.

[Azathoth]

If your house is dark enough and the floorboards aren't creaky, you could always toss a can or fork over his head and then knock him out from behind while he investigates the noise. That's what Sam Fisher would do, anyway.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Concern for human life? I'll pass on. If a #$½‘$~@ tries to break into my place I'll do my best to make sure he leaves dead or at least crippled.
.

[Viking]

Killing is indeed something never, ever to be taken lightly, but given the right circumstances one absolutely must be willing and able to make that choice to defend their family. Someone who cannot has no business having a family, IMO.

At 21, he probably didn't have any.

[pevergreen]

I have a knife which is not easily accessible and blunt which won't do much good.
Its not that knife I used for throwing practice ages ago in ironbark is it?


I thought he was laughing at the fact that he would be using a tool, rather than his deadly weapons because he doesn't want them getting dirty.

Samurai Warrior: This sword is an ancient piece of steel, the craftsmenship is nothing less than a work of art. It is the last of its kind.
Normal guy: Woah...its amazing... Lifts it out of the holder, goes into a warrior pose.

Normal guy goes walks towards camera and uses sword to put vegemite on his toast.

[Beefy187]

Its not that knife I used for throwing practice ages ago in ironbark is it?

Nope its not.

Samurai Warrior: This sword is an ancient piece of steel, the craftsmenship is nothing less than a work of art. It is the last of its kind.
Normal guy: Woah...its amazing... Lifts it out of the holder, goes into a warrior pose.

Normal guy goes walks towards camera and uses sword to put vegemite on his toast.

Can't believe you guys eat those things :sweatdrop:

[Furunculus]

If you can prove he's entering, not leaving, and you have reason to fear for your life.

Anyway, I'm extremely disturbed the cavalier attitude here and the lack of concern for human life.

i don't care whether he's coming or going, he's broken into my sacred place with the intention of stealing my holy relics, he's going to get his ass severely kicked.

i'm not intending to disregard, or revel in, the possibility of maiming or death, but the person won't be leaving my house until he has a look of white faced terror at the prospect any further time in my company.

that is my house and my stuff, WTF!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that choice, if you pick up a staff and go after someone who's broken into your house, you are an utter fool.

Killing is indeed something never, ever to be taken lightly, but given the right circumstances one absolutely must be willing and able to make that choice to defend their family. Someone who cannot has no business having a family, IMO.

I can kill a man at least three ways with a cricket bat or a two foot piece of ash; I can also just break his elbows. A knife is just a killing weapon, and the best way to use it is to step in close and go up under the ribs before he even realises yo're going to do it.


Indeed. The right to make these choices, however, should remain with the individual and not the government.

None of us do, and none of us should. What we should be is willing to do so when necessary and just.

I think some here are either making light of it or don't care wether they kill someone or not.


i don't care whether he's coming or going, he's broken into my sacred place with the intention of stealing my holy relics, he's going to get his ass severely kicked.

i'm not intending to disregard, or revel in, the possibility of maiming or death, but the person won't be leaving my house until he has a look of white faced terror at the prospect any further time in my company.

that is my house and my stuff, WTF!

According to UK law you can't kill a man running away from you, it's murder.

[Meneldil]

This thread is worth a good old facepalm.

Seriously people?

"I've got a axe and I kill cats with it, lolz :laugh4:" "Yeah, if someone enters my place I have a whole bunch of knives and and [insert some random useless and nerdy weapon that you probably can't even use correctly] I'm soo cool dudes :yes:"

Grow up people, you all look like 14 years old naruto addicts. Some guy was killed in the incident, and even if I understand the motives - and would probably have tried to incapacitate or kill him too - I don't think there's anything to laugh about.
The fact that you all feel a need to brag about how you'd kill some guy with some exotic weapon in order to feel manly - while I'm pretty sure most of you would be too scared to even move - is quite telling about the sad state of our society.
Further, people who own katana and think they're cool are morons.


In nations with sensible laws, the person defending should never be considered a criminal for defending with lethal force their family and property.

Too bad you don't rule my country. I could kill all the 8 years old who jump into my garden because they thrown a ball there with such a great leader. What a wonderful country that'd be.

[Hax]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

[Cute Wolf]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

But in practical daily criminal news in my country, anyone that you can prove he/she was trying to rob your house, or do some harm with you or your family, may be killed on self defence, and that was completely legal. Actually it was an old, unmodified old Dutch law.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Philippus and Meneldil are right. If you kill a burglar, you will have to face the consequences (legal, moral and physical)

But you have to have some discernment.

If a guy cuts through my lawn to save time and I plug him in the back, obviously there are a good many consequences I should face. If a guy enters my garage and I rush in there and plug him in the back, there should be some consequences I should potentially face.

However, the man in question went into his garage to investigate, not to mutilate the guy. And when you have a legitimate reason to investigate (i.e. you really think someone's in your house), you should bring along some means of protection if you have any brains at all.

So he brought what was handy, I suppose. In any case, the next point it that he confronted the criminal, but he was CERTAINLY passive as far as the actual homicide went.

The burglar jumped him, right? Therefore, the only thing you can blame the homeowner for is that he went into his own garage.

Basically, you're saying, "Well, if the guy hadn't gone into the garage, the burglar wouldn't have died."

Revoltingly faulty logic. That's like T-boning someone in a busy intersection and blaming it on them.

"I wouldn't have hit his car if he hadn't been driving today!!!"

Come on. How far will you take this? You remind me of an actual case where a guy broke into someone's house while they were on vacation. He came in through the house and went into the garage, not knowing that their garage door was a security door (unlocked on the inside, locked on the outside). So he got himself stuck in the garage, and had nothing but pop to live on until they found him when they came home.

He sued them on account he was stuck in their garage. I'm serious; this happened. You're applying very similar "logic" to this case.

Furthermore, it's easy for you to scream that he should have called the police, thanks to the glorious benefit of hindsight.

But do you call the cops every time you hear a noise in your garage? Obviously the guy had more than general concern that somebody was in his garage, but it's not as if he could have divined that the burglar would charge him while he was holding a great big sword.

He was simply going into his garage to check. I know I've done that; I know a number of people who have done that with a firearm. One acquaintance of mine checked out his garage with a replica blackpowder revolver, because he figured the noise and smoke would scare the living daylights out of any criminal if he fired a warning shot.

Anyways, people feel the need to check out a suspicious noise all the time, and more often than not they bring something with them, just in case. Well, this time it so happened that someone really was in there.

[Husar]

Too bad you don't rule my country. I could kill all the 8 years old who jump into my garden because they thrown a ball there with such a great leader. What a wonderful country that'd be.

You could also invite someone over and then kill them. :dizzy2:

Concerning the whole thread, I think most here would prefer not to end up in such a situation at all and I read in some Frontroom thread that having violent dreams is perfectly normal. :clown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But you have to have some discernment.

If a guy cuts through my lawn to save time and I plug him in the back, obviously there are a good many consequences I should face. If a guy enters my garage and I rush in there and plug him in the back, there should be some consequences I should potentially face.

However, the man in question went into his garage to investigate, not to mutilate the guy. And when you have a legitimate reason to investigate (i.e. you really think someone's in your house), you should bring along some means of protection if you have any brains at all.

So he brought what was handy, I suppose. In any case, the next point it that he confronted the criminal, but he was CERTAINLY passive as far as the actual homicide went.

The burglar jumped him, right? Therefore, the only thing you can blame the homeowner for is that he went into his own garage.

Basically, you're saying, "Well, if the guy hadn't gone into the garage, the burglar wouldn't have died."

Revoltingly faulty logic. That's like T-boning someone in a busy intersection and blaming it on them.

Going to stop you right there.

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were. As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were.

OK, agreed. An interesting commentary on how we are desensitized to violence, don't you think? And of course a lot of people were caught up in the moment, you know...

I have a couple of... defensive tools myself, but I prefer to hope that any criminal that enters my house will balk when threatened with deadly force, as most of them do.


As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

I wouldn't bet on it, but that's your prerogative. Just don't force it, by and large, on everybody, because not everybody can defend themselves effectively with an umbrella.


Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

Now here you are using some of that faulty logic again, although I'm glad you don't carry it to the point of absurdity. :bow:

I assume that it would be consistent to say that you are of the oppinion that "Handguns are designed only for killing and should be banned."

Now, you are, of course, right. But the fact is that knives have been around for thousands of years, and everybody has one. Guns, too, are fairly common. They are certainly available even in those countries where they are illegal.

So, the reality is that, if one could instantly remove all guns from planet earth, well, that would save some lives.

However, for one thing then you would just have people with knives fighting people with knives instead of the same scenario with guns. Obviously, regulating the available hardware will not make mankind docile, patient, and honest.

Therefore, the reality is that my handgun is indeed meant to kill, and it is a very unfortunate reality, and one that must not be taken lightly, and certainly not carried out on a whim. It is meant to kill anyone who threatens me or those around me with deadly force.

I gotta go now but we can discuss this further, I trust. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now here you are using some of that faulty logic again, although I'm glad you don't carry it to the point of absurdity. :bow:

I assume that it would be consistent to say that you are of the oppinion that "Handguns are designed only for killing and should be banned."

Now, you are, of course, right. But the fact is that knives have been around for thousands of years, and everybody has one. Guns, too, are fairly common. They are certainly available even in those countries where they are illegal.

So, the reality is that, if one could instantly remove all guns from planet earth, well, that would save some lives.

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed. Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

If I pull a knife on you, the next thing I'm going to do is kill you, the same with a gun. I'm not going to mess about long enough for you to think about the fact your life might be in danger.

That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

[Furunculus]

Concerning the whole thread, I think most here would prefer not to end up in such a situation at all and

sure, i never want to find someone in my house stealing my stuff. never.

but if i find someone doing it i desire* that they never want to steal from me again either.

* read: i actively desire

[Furunculus]

Going to stop you right there.

I don't have that bigger problem with the guy who killed the burgler, though his choice of weapon was strange at least. I do have a problem with all these guys tooling up to kill people that break in and then boasting about how prepared they were. As I said, I have an umbrella and that is more than sufficient for stopping anyone without a firearm.

Blades are only for killing, so if you take a blade you're either stupid or have already decided to kill the intruder.

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

[Furunculus]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed. Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

chances are i don't carry a knife on the street.

chances are that if some dies after refusing to leave my house immediately after i tell them to leave, and I judge them to be sound sound mind and legally responsible, i don't really care.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You could also invite someone over and then kill them. :dizzy2:

No, that would be illegal. The only way you could use violence would be if you invited them, asked them to leave, and they refused. That would actually be a very interesting court case, as it could go either way.

But anybody who breaks into my house, unless I am positive his intentions are somehow innocent (which is practically impossible if he is breaking into my house), is fair game. I'm not saying I would enjoy it - I don't think anyone in this thread would. I am saying that I would not hesitate to defend my property and my life with whatever force deemed necessary by me at the time. Note that I say by me, because it is me in that situation and nobody else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

So that's why most victims of knife crime get cut with their own weapon.

[Furunculus]

in your own home it's up to you what you decide to threaten an intruder with; pair of maracas, big rubber dildo, bbq tongs, the choice is yours, as is the consequence if you can't wield them with effect.

[Viking]

No, that would be illegal. The only way you could use violence would be if you invited them, asked them to leave, and they refused. That would actually be a very interesting court case, as it could go either way.

If all they do is refusing to leave, it would obviously be an excessive use of violence.

[Whacker]

rubbish, blades are really good for threatening with.

So are umbrellas!


in your own home it's up to you what you decide to threaten an intruder with; pair of maracas, big rubber dildo, bbq tongs, the choice is yours, as is the consequence if you can't wield them with effect.

This is precisely why my home defense arsenal constitutes: a tarp, a spatula, and a vat of crisco.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If all they do is refusing to leave, it would obviously be an excessive use of violence.

I didn't say kill them, I said use of violence, meaning forcibly removing them from your home if necessary.

[Hax]

But in practical daily criminal news in my country, anyone that you can prove he/she was trying to rob your house, or do some harm with you or your family, may be killed on self defence, and that was completely legal. Actually it was an old, unmodified old Dutch law.


But you have to have some discernment. <snip> Anyways, people feel the need to check out a suspicious noise all the time, and more often than not they bring something with them, just in case. Well, this time it so happened that someone really was in there.

You misunderstand "consequence". Every action has consequences. If you kill a burglar, even if it was in self-defense, perhaps you will suffer nightmares for a few weeks/months straight. If you kill a burglar, and you are convincted on the charge of murder, you will have to go to prison. If you kill a burglar, you will have to clean the bloodstains from your carpet.

All actions have their consequences. Think instead, what would be the best action to take? If you kill him, in an instinctical reaction, you are not to be blamed. Nor is the burglar, in another situation perhaps you would have done something else. Killing people should be avoided at all times.

[jabarto]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is true. A knife in untrained hands is more than useless; it's downright dangerous to its wielder. I'd take a good, solid club over a knife any day.


That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but using a lethal weapon for non-lethal attacks can get you in serious trouble here in the states. The courts can reason that, if you have the luxury of making nonlethal attacks, than a lethal weapon isn't called for in the first place, and BAM, you get an attempted murder charge, even if you were defending your life and wellbeing.

Granted, this sort of thing usually only happens with guns, but I think even a bat or the like would be considered a deadly weapon in this circumstance.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Not my point. If someone pulls a knife in a fight, the chances are someone will get cut or killed.

Possibly. But, then, if we are considering home defence, that I felt compelled to pull a knife means I was probably right in feeling threatened.


Usually it's the guy who pulled the knife and then hoped the "threat of deadly force" would be enough to win. Fact is, only cowards pull knives and don't use them; they get the knives taken off them and then they are the ones to get cut.

In the first place, you are being very excessively general, and painting with an exceedingly wide brush.

In the second place, your argument is based almost wholly upon hypothetical scenarios that have no real-life counterparts, which indicates that your fears of excessive violence in home defence are ungrounded and (no offence) slightly paranoid.

Going with that thought, I don't suppose you could present documented examples or statistics?

In the third place, you are actually ignoring documented examples and statistics in the case of firearms. Of course, you were talking about knives, but just to shift focus for a moment, it is probable that a criminal will run or freeze 'till the police arrive if they are confronted by a firearm, unless they have one of their own, in which case you have every right to use any and all means available to stop him.


If I pull a knife on you, the next thing I'm going to do is kill you, the same with a gun. I'm not going to mess about long enough for you to think about the fact your life might be in danger.

This is perhaps true, but not the same with a gun. Guns are much more effective as a threatening tool. This reality is employed often in home defence.


That's why, in the course of events, I'd really rather take a blunt weapon and try to break your elbow.

The point has been made that, if you only needed to use a bat, the court will wonder why force was necessary at all.

What you're doing is watering it down. "Well, you didn't need a GUN; you could have used a knife and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a KNIFE; you could have used a bat and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a BAT; why couldn't you be a REAL man and fight with your fists?"

And actually that is somewhat accurate, considering that in defence cases OUTSIDE the home, you are actually required in some areas to run away, try to wrestle your assailant to the ground, etc. It's really quite rediculous.

Now, I'm not being flippant at all; I'm dead serious in the following statement.

I know someone (call him Fred) who has planned, if an intruder comes into the house, that his wife should shoot the guy rather than Fred doing it because if Fred shot him their could be a big court issue about "you could have punched him, wrestled him, blah blah blah."

It's a rediculous legal mess, really.

[Whacker]

You misunderstand "consequence". Every action has consequences. If you kill a burglar, even if it was in self-defense, perhaps you will suffer nightmares for a few weeks/months straight. If you kill a burglar, and you are convincted on the charge of murder, you will have to go to prison. If you kill a burglar, you will have to clean the bloodstains from your carpet.

I'd rather deal with the nightmares of having to kill someone, than my family or I laying dead or brutalized and I could have prevented it. I'd that the former anyday over the latter.


Just wanted to chime in and say that this is true. A knife in untrained hands is more than useless; it's downright dangerous to its wielder. I'd take a good, solid club over a knife any day.

That's only true if both people aren't skilled in fighting/defending knives. If a burglar breaks into the house of some Kali guru, they're going to get carved up like ground beef. If both are unskilled, it boils down to a crapshoot. Personally, I'd rather fight someone hand to hand with a bat anyday over someone who's got a knife, because even with someone who knows crapall about knives, you WILL get cut no matter how good you are.


I don't know how it is in the UK, but using a lethal weapon for non-lethal attacks can get you in serious trouble here in the states. The courts can reason that, if you have the luxury of making nonlethal attacks, than a lethal weapon isn't called for in the first place, and BAM, you get an attempted murder charge, even if you were defending your life and wellbeing.

Granted, this sort of thing usually only happens with guns, but I think even a bat or the like would be considered a deadly weapon in this circumstance.A few points to elaborate on and/or correct. Nothing is black and white. In states that have good, proper castle doctrine laws, any attack on your person inside of your home is probably going to be assumed to be lethal consequences. Anyone who says they wouldn't be in fear for their lives in such a circumstance is a self-deluding fool. Good castle doctrine states the homeowner has no duty to retreat, and that lethal force is justified in the event of the intruder assaulting or initiating an assault. Shooting someone in the back as they're halfway out the door into the street does not meet this criteria obviously.


The point has been made that, if you only needed to use a bat, the court will wonder why force was necessary at all.

What you're doing is watering it down. "Well, you didn't need a GUN; you could have used a knife and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a KNIFE; you could have used a bat and maybe that dirty criminal would still be alive today!"

"Well, you didn't need a BAT; why couldn't you be a REAL man and fight with your fists?"

And actually that is somewhat accurate, considering that in defence cases OUTSIDE the home, you are actually required in some areas to run away, try to wrestle your assailant to the ground, etc. It's really quite rediculous.

IANAL, but I don't think it'd really ever come to this. No one is going to be arguing if you should have used a bat instead of a knife, instead of a gun, or this or that. Such is generally irrelevant. The point is, was the lethal force justified? Were the circumstances and situation sufficient to allow for the circumstances that occurred? Shooting a fleeing burglar in the back is obviously not. Shooting a guy brandishing a knife and leaping at you obviously is.


Now, I'm not being flippant at all; I'm dead serious in the following statement.

I know someone (call him Fred) who has planned, if an intruder comes into the house, that his wife should shoot the guy rather than Fred doing it because if Fred shot him their could be a big court issue about "you could have punched him, wrestled him, blah blah blah."My guess would be he's probably a martial artist. MAers are always held to higher standards when it comes to lethal force in physical combat. It's retarded but, if you've got so many years of such and such, the assumption is you can easily disarm the 400 lb gorilla burglar of their machete because... y'know... yer a ninjer, and stuff. :rolleyes:

[OverKnight]

Now I'm curious. What exactly is a tactical baton? An ASP?

Yup that's another name for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_(law_enforcement)#Expandable_baton).

Personally I've never used it in anger, but it makes a very cool schhhiiikkkk sound when you deploy it.

[Viking]

I didn't say kill them, I said use of violence, meaning forcibly removing them from your home if necessary.

As I meant. Beating someone up because they refuse to get out of your house, appears in most cases to be well over the top. Dragging him out or dumping him outside, OTOH...something which isn't really violence anyway.

[Hax]

I'd rather deal with the nightmares of having to kill someone, than my family or I laying dead or brutalized and I could have prevented it. I'd that the former anyday over the latter.

Thing is, burglars are usually not murderers. I think (!) that a burglar would rather escape than attack, if he was found.

[Cute Wolf]

Thing is, burglars are usually not murderers. I think (!) that a burglar would rather escape than attack, if he was found.

Bet your home / whatever place that you life.... is never get a burglar inside......
You simply never encountered a real life burglars! :laugh4:

I know that both of us still unmarried and didn't have a child, but consider this hypothetical case:
(not only hax, but other orgah's especially who allready had a child could answer it)

You are a father, and you life with your wife and an infant son. One day, you hear some noise arround your garage and decide to check that. On your way, you could grab a potentially lethal weapon (guns, axes, blades, spears or big forks), and you know how to end someone's life with it rather effectively. As you walk silently to your garage, you spotted a man, trying to pick your door, or allready carried some loot, moves arround suspiciously to your little son's bedroom, where your wife and your son are sleeping. To one point of extreme, your wife is such a coward, even with weapons on her hands, tend to scream and cry like a kitten, and your infant son... couldn't defend himself. As you see more clearly, that burglar was carrying a weapon that you recognize as a gun. You are capable to launch a surprise attack once, and with that weapons on your hands, you are sure that your "surprise attack" could end in killing or permanently maiming that burglar....... but IF you don't attack, and just yelling at that guy, he'll eventually find your son, and maybe use him as hostage..... which one did you'll take? Killing that burglar now, or call the police, and let the bad guy found your son?
:dizzy2:

IF I were that guy in defense of the home, I'll act as a good father that protect my son, and try my best to decapitate that burglar with my axe/blade..... Even if I life in some areas with ridiculous law such as some country. I'll rather spent my time in prison rather than see he hurts (emotional hurts are even worse... remember the boy are infant!) or worse, kills my family.
:yes:

[Hax]

I will answer for myself now; I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.

If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.

I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.

[Fragony]

axe -> face

It isn't murder when someone breaks into your house. Not going to gamble with my life, so his will have to go.

[Cute Wolf]

I will answer for myself now; I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.

And the worst things is he charges at you, and killing you while your mouth is still talking.....


If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.

I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.

This was a better option.... aim for the right hand..... a maimed limb could be re-attached if you call ambulance in 24 hours....:2thumbsup: while you store the burglar's hand in your freezer

[Ariovistus Maximus]

[QUOTE]IANAL, but I don't think it'd really ever come to this. No one is going to be arguing if you should have used a bat instead of a knife, instead of a gun, or this or that. Such is generally irrelevant. The point is, was the lethal force justified?

Actually, my point was that it HAS come to that. Are you familiar with Castle Doctrine? It's the concept that I shouldn't be required to flee an assailant in my own home before I use lethal force to stop him.

I believe the opposite is called Duty-to-Retreat. Many states have this, and the idea is that, wherever you are, you are required by law to run away from your attacker before using lethal force.

So, when you DO use lethal force, there is plenty of potential to have a big legal issue with blood-sucking lawers trying to get rich by suing you for defending yourself.


Thing is, burglars are usually not murderers. I think (!) that a burglar would rather escape than attack, if he was found.

But a good many of them are. I mean, a guy breaking into your house kinda says something about his moral standards and respect for the law, doesn't it?

FURTHERMORE, I think it's ironic that the burglar in the very case we're discussing assaulted the homeowner.


I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.

Not trying to impede on your personal convictions; just thought I'd give my thoughts as well.

The scenario you've created seems to assume that you have stayed put and the criminal has found you. If he doesn't run away just at the sight of you (which indeed can and does happen), then he'll take your kindness as a bluff and do who-knows-what to you.

Criminals generally aren't given to talking things over, so you're on a rather dangerous path there.

The ones that are thoughtful enough to be effected by your pleas probably aren't the type that break into people's houses.

Maybe those ones go into politics...


If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.

That's assuming that he has no arms of his own and that you are physically capable of besting him in a fight.

You are indeed welcome to suppose this, but don't assume that everybody in the world is so physically capable and try to force your own methods on them.

Not that I'm saying that you're trying to do that, understand. AFAICS you are giving your own thoughts on it which is great.


I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.

Neither will I. First of all, defensive homicide is not murder, so even if I killed him I wouldn't have "murdered" him.

Secondly, as you yourself have said, many criminals will cut and run. Well, let me tell you that there are even MORE criminals who will either run or freeze in their tracks when confronted by a firearm.

AFAIK the majority of home defence cases with a firearm do not result in homicide.

I do remember one case where a guy spent 15 minutes breaking into his ex's house and battering down her bedroom door, having expressed certain intentions. She shot him dead.

Oh, and she was talking to a 911 operator the whole time. The police never got there until after the fact.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

This just in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_re_us/us_virginia_killings

I think this demonstrates my case fairly well.

Maybe he used an umbrella...

[Furunculus]

I will answer for myself now; I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.

I have come to a self understanding (not as official as a vow) that I have zero tolerance for other people interfering unduly in my life, and in the interest of; do unto others as you would have them do unto you I will not unduly interfere in anyone else's life.

If someone else is so damnably rude as to unduly interfere in my personal life then all bets are off, they rely totally on my good nature and self restraint for whatever consequence ensues; be that a barked "@^*k off!" directed at some street oik shouting abuse, or be it physical violence directed at someone who has been caught burgling my house and refuses to leave instantly and without my property.

[Hax]

I do remember one case where a guy spent 15 minutes breaking into his ex's house and battering down her bedroom door, having expressed certain intentions.

Well, the intentions are clearly different.


And the worst things is he charges at you, and killing you while your mouth is still talking.....

Be serious, please. That would be a completely illogical action, if we're honest.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, the intentions are clearly different.

Exactly. So how can we consistently determine what is reasonable and what is not, when it's a subjective problem?

[Hax]

Exactly. So how can we consistently determine what is reasonable and what is not, when it's a subjective problem?

Depends on your idea of burglary:




The crime (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crime) of breaking into (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/break_in) a vehicle (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vehicle), house (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/house), store (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/store), or other enclosure with the intent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intent) to steal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal).
(law) Under the common law (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law), breaking and entering (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breaking_and_entering) of the dwelling (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dwelling) of another at night (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_night) with the intent to commit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commit) a felony (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/felony).
(law, US) Under the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code), entering a building (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/building) or occupied (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occupied) structure (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/structure) with purpose (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/purpose) to commit a crime (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crime) therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public. Model Penal Code § 221.1.

In the first case, well yeah. If he's in purely for the money, he'd probably be off as soon as he saw me, or anyone else. Burglar =/= murderer.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As I meant. Beating someone up because they refuse to get out of your house, appears in most cases to be well over the top. Dragging him out or dumping him outside, OTOH...something which isn't really violence anyway.

I was talking about dragging the individual outside, which is violence in my opinion. The only way you would ever hit them in that case would be if they hit you first.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I will answer for myself now; I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.

If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.

I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.

Two people had recently been murdered by burglars in that area. You can't really reduce suffering in the world by letting yourself be killed.

Granted there are some people in this thread who are a bit gung-ho about it, but you are too far the other way imo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are a father, and you life with your wife and an infant son. One day, you hear some noise arround your garage and decide to check that. On your way, you could grab a potentially lethal weapon (guns, axes, blades, spears or big forks), and you know how to end someone's life with it rather effectively. As you walk silently to your garage, you spotted a man, trying to pick your door, or allready carried some loot, moves arround suspiciously to your little son's bedroom, where your wife and your son are sleeping. To one point of extreme, your wife is such a coward, even with weapons on her hands, tend to scream and cry like a kitten, and your infant son... couldn't defend himself. As you see more clearly, that burglar was carrying a weapon that you recognize as a gun. You are capable to launch a surprise attack once, and with that weapons on your hands, you are sure that your "surprise attack" could end in killing or permanently maiming that burglar....... but IF you don't attack, and just yelling at that guy, he'll eventually find your son, and maybe use him as hostage..... which one did you'll take? Killing that burglar now, or call the police, and let the bad guy found your son?
:dizzy2:

I'd be carrying a stick, and I'd crack him on the back of the head. Your scenario assumes the burgler has picked or forced the lock, so he's already inside and I am therefore between him and my family, or I've let him get past me.

At no point would I be so stupid as to allow someone to get between me and those I love. I wouldn't put myself in such a stupid situation. Further, such a pathetic woman as the one you describe almost certainly wouldn't stay with a man capable of killing, unless out of fear.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The only way you would ever hit them in that case would be if they hit you first.

If they hit you first... doesn't that bring a strong possibility of incapacitation? :inquisitive:

I won't call the police until AFTER I get shot! :stupido2:


I'd be carrying a stick, and I'd crack him on the back of the head. Your scenario assumes the burgler has picked or forced the lock, so he's already inside and I am therefore between him and my family, or I've let him get past me.

At no point would I be so stupid as to allow someone to get between me and those I love. I wouldn't put myself in such a stupid situation. Further, such a pathetic woman as the one you describe almost certainly wouldn't stay with a man capable of killing, unless out of fear.

But in all this you're assuming that you control the environment.

Of course you wouldn't put yourself in a bad position. But the fact is that it's the CRIMINAL who initiates and thus determines your position. Could be good or could be bad, depending on his planning.

Furthermore, if a burglar enters at night, you have to be aware of his entry to BEGIN with, and there are ways to enter a house without making noise. Furthermore, the only way that you could HOPE to be on par with the burglar physically is if you are alert, which is unlikely if you've just woken up.

Also, to whack a burglar on the back of the head? Either somehow you got behind him, which means you're no longer between him and your family, or you pulled a really nice move. A move that means you are sacrificing leverage to reach around him and whack him, which also means that you are close to him which also makes you very vulnerable.

So your in a terrible tactical situation using methods that are almost self defeating.

You know, if your plan of action is doomed to disaster when you've been sitting at home in comfort thinking it out, don't you think that if the real time came and you had a split-second decision to make, the odds are it wouldn't work?

Plan B: Firearm. Those problems disappear. You have only to point and he will probably obey, unless he has one of his own, in case you're REALLY lucky you have one too or you'd be a goner guaranteed. And if you don't think bad guys can get bad things that they're not allowed to have, well... welcome to planet earth. :)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If they hit you first... doesn't that bring a strong possibility of incapacitation? :inquisitive:

I won't call the police until AFTER I get shot! :stupido2:


I was talking about if you're removing someone from your home who you invited there, something went wrong (maybe they snapped and went crazy about something), and when in the process of dragging them outside they hit you or try to fight, you hit back.

In a case of someone being in your house univited, you identify your target and then take appropriate measures to neutralize the threat, starting immediately.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I was talking about if you're removing someone from your home who you invited there, something went wrong (maybe they snapped and went crazy about something), and when in the process of dragging them outside they hit you or try to fight, you hit back.

Oh. heh heh.

:shame:

Wonderful thing, context. :beam::yes:

Sorry, I didn't realize.

[Azathoth]

I'd just like to present this clip (http://www.cracked.com/video_16758_least-effective-ad-ever.html) to the discussion:

[Hax]

Two people had recently been murdered by burglars in that area. You can't really reduce suffering in the world by letting yourself be killed.

Granted there are some people in this thread who are a bit gung-ho about it, but you are too far the other way imo.

Don't get me wrong, if I had to fight for my life, I might just as well kill someone. If he carries a knife, or a gun for that matter, I'll probably try to kill (or incapacitate, at the very least) him first.

[Cute Wolf]

I'd just like to present this clip (http://www.cracked.com/video_16758_least-effective-ad-ever.html) to the discussion:

How strong the elderly can do in one hit to the back head..... well, actually, that clip displays a really shocking image of wrong pre-emptive assault. :embarassed: well...... you get a very good point....

now, how about "friendly fire"? I don't have any clue how to avoid it, when some of your family want to put a surprise, if you only have a close combat weapons. (with gun, you only got to say "FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT YOU!!!!"

Actually, this clip shows about HOW CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS CAN BECOME DANGEROUS TO YOUR OWN FAMILY WHO LOVES SURPRISE! because close combat weapons didn't have much... threatening range....

:oops:

You're right.....

[gaelic cowboy]

Padraig Nally his Gun and the Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward)

This incident caused a furore in Ireland and is pretty much dealin exactly with what your all debating

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, this clip shows about HOW CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS CAN BECOME DANGEROUS TO YOUR OWN FAMILY WHO LOVES SURPRISE! because close combat weapons didn't have much... threatening range....

Well surprising people with guns (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/6631012.html) in dark areas can be very dangerous:

BANDERA — Be careful who you say "Boo!" to.

A Bandera County jailer was shot in the thigh after he jumped out and roared at a deputy in a darkened room at Bandera County Sheriff's Department office.

Chief Deputy Don Berger says Deputy A.J. Griffin shot 22-year-old Daniel Spengler before dawn Sunday. Spengler was airlifted to Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio for treatment.

Berger says the 36-year-old deputy "revert to his training" when the jailer jumped at him, shooting Spengler once, then giving him first aid.

CR

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well surprising people with guns (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/6631012.html) in dark areas can be very dangerous:


CR

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid? :inquisitive:


This incident caused a furore in Ireland and is pretty much dealin exactly with what your all debating

Similarly, intentionally aggressive homicide is not what we're advocating.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid? :inquisitive

I'm going to assume you're asking that in jest or you don't know my backroom reputation.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Granted, rampantly stupid idiots are a threat to their own safety.

Are you trying to draw from this the conclusion that the concept of self-defense is invalid? :inquisitive:



Similarly, intentionally aggressive homicide is not what we're advocating.

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

I wonder at this.

So somehow "ordinary" people aren't qualified, yet if you go through a Police Academy you somehow become infallible.

Are you aware that wrongful homicide in civilian self-defense is about half the rate as wrongful homicide in law enforcement?

So what evidence do you bring, sir, that actually supports this notion, besides a few accident cases compared to about 20 times as many success stories?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

Only the general evidence proves that they are safe. Moving along.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder at this.

So somehow "ordinary" people aren't qualified, yet if you go through a Police Academy you somehow become infallible.

Are you aware that wrongful homicide in civilian self-defense is about half the rate as wrongful homicide in law enforcement?

So what evidence do you bring, sir, that actually supports this notion, besides a few accident cases compared to about 20 times as many success stories?


Only the general evidence proves that they are safe. Moving along.

You assume I think policemen are safe with firearms. I don't.

Give them to civilians, people get shot.

Give them to policemen, people get shot.

Give them to soldiers, people get shot.

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

No it isn't. All of the above groups are perfectly entitled to shoot people in certain circumstances.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No it isn't. All of the above groups are perfectly entitled to shoot people in certain circumstances.

Entitled to shoot people?

Get a grip, no one is entitled to shoot anyone. In every circumstance it should be the last resort.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

Hmm, in Washington state anybody over 21 with no felonies can get a CPL - which allows them to carry a concealed pistol. No training required.

And yet the results have been quite safe.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Entitled to shoot people?

Get a grip, no one is entitled to shoot anyone. In every circumstance it should be the last resort.

Entitled. "To furnish with a right or claim to something." So yes, you do have the right to shoot people in certain circumstances. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be the last resort.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Entitled. "To furnish with a right or claim to something." So yes, you do have the right to shoot people in certain circumstances. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be the last resort.

Not a philosophical point I agree with. It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not a philosophical point I agree with. It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

According to the definition above, having the right to do it means being entitled to do it. Sensible Castle Laws will provide the individual with the right to shoot if necessary, and therefore I have and can use that right (legally) if, and only if, it is necessary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

According to the definition above, having the right to do it means being entitled to do it. Sensible Castle Laws will provide the individual with the right to shoot if necessary, and therefore I have and can use that right (legally) if, and only if, it is necessary.

You're still missing the point. Succumbing to necessity does not justify your actions. To kill is an evil act, in every instance.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You're still missing the point. Succumbing to necessity does not justify your actions. To kill is an evil act, in every instance.

I didn't say it was nice, I said that you had the legal right to do so. Nevertheless, I disagree that it is always an evil and unjust act.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say it was nice, I said that you had the legal right to do so. Nevertheless, I disagree that it is always an evil and unjust act.

When is killing itself not an evil act?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When is killing itself not an evil act?

When it is just or absolutely necessary it is not evil. It is terrible that it must happen in these cases, but not evil. Then again, you appear to be a moral absolutist, so I don't think you'll agree.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You assume I think policemen are safe with firearms. I don't.

Give them to civilians, people get shot.

Give them to policemen, people get shot.

Give them to soldiers, people get shot.

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

Flawed logic.

When you give cars to the general public, people get run over.

When you give cars to law enforcement, people get run over.

When you give cars to the military, people get run over.

Somehow the fault is the cars? :laugh4:

Doesn't this suggest to you that people are bad and they will ever be harming each other regardless of the hardware they use?

Whilst, on the other hand, here we have hardware that can PREVENT innocent people from being endangered. Although, admittedly, it means that serial killers, rapists, and burglars run a higher fatality risk.


Entitled to shoot people?

Get a grip, no one is entitled to shoot anyone. In every circumstance it should be the last resort.

That's the very point of the issue.

You said it yourself: The last resort is shooting people. When there are no options left, his life or mine, we already have to come to grips with the fact that someone will die.


It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

You said yourself that it's necessary, yet we shouldn't do it? Interesting.

So the very fact that it's necessary means that the alternative is probably that my own life will be snuffed out.

Difference is, I'm a law-abiding citizen promoting the general wellfare and contributing to society; he's out to do the exact opposite and is putting people in danger, perhaps on a regular basis.


When is killing itself not an evil act?

When the only alternative is a different killing.

Somehow, because somebody has to die in this scenario, you're making it a "hitter's game" and giving the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt? Why should HE get all the advantages and lifelines when he's intentionally going out of the way to do harm to me and people like me???

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Killing is not a priori an evil thing. There are reasons for killing, just as there are reasons for breathing - first and utmost being the utter guarantee of self preservation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When it is just or absolutely necessary it is not evil. It is terrible that it must happen in these cases, but not evil. Then again, you appear to be a moral absolutist, so I don't think you'll agree.

No, because necessity is not justification. If you kill someone you are succumbing to necessity through weekness. You are allowed a certain amount of leeway under the law, but technically you should be able to resolve any situation without killing someone.


Flawed logic.

When you give cars to the general public, people get run over.

When you give cars to law enforcement, people get run over.

When you give cars to the military, people get run over.

Somehow the fault is the cars? :laugh4:

Doesn't this suggest to you that people are bad and they will ever be harming each other regardless of the hardware they use?

Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.


Whilst, on the other hand, here we have hardware that can PREVENT innocent people from being endangered. Although, admittedly, it means that serial killers, rapists, and burglars run a higher fatality risk.

Guns don't protect people, body armour does.


That's the very point of the issue.

You said it yourself: The last resort is shooting people. When there are no options left, his life or mine, we already have to come to grips with the fact that someone will die.

You said yourself that it's necessary, yet we shouldn't do it? Interesting.

Necessity is necessity, doesn't make it right. If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better. That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.


So the very fact that it's necessary means that the alternative is probably that my own life will be snuffed out.

Difference is, I'm a law-abiding citizen promoting the general wellfare and contributing to society; he's out to do the exact opposite and is putting people in danger, perhaps on a regular basis.

Kill a killer and you become what you kill.


When the only alternative is a different killing.

Somehow, because somebody has to die in this scenario, you're making it a "hitter's game" and giving the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt? Why should HE get all the advantages and lifelines when he's intentionally going out of the way to do harm to me and people like me???

No, but don't pretend you're morally justified, or you won't have night mares about it.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

No, because necessity is not justification.

If you're going to cling to that, there's nothing to debate here.

Nonetheless:


If you kill someone you are succumbing to necessity through weekness.

Hardly. The odds of killing even two different criminals in self-defense are quite low.


You are allowed a certain amount of leeway under the law, but technically you should be able to resolve any situation without killing someone.

Impossible.

You really think that criminals are the type to sit down and have a deep discussion with you? You don't seem to realize the nature of breaking and entering. You've got less than a minute to figure out what to do, and it ain't giving a speech.


Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

In the US, there are about 50,000 gun-related deaths annually. 50,000 is the HIGHEST number I've seen in my research, so I'm being generous.

The experts seem to agree that about HALF of those deaths are suicide. And there are a variety of methods to kill one's self other than with guns, so banning guns solves nothing. Thus 1/2 of firearm deaths would have occurred anyway.

Now we have 25,000 deaths from firearms.

About 15,000 of these were GANG-RELATED. However, to be generous (again) to the anti-gun side, let's say only 10,000 were gang-related. Now, gangs kill each other for the sake of killing each other; they will do it with whatever they can find that's handy. In fact, this website says that 2 out of three gun deaths are gang or drug-related, so I am being very generous. So now we see that about 3/4 of gun deaths would have been committed without guns.

Now we have 15,000 deaths caused by firearms.

Now, an estimated 1.5 million crimes are stopped by gun owners annually. It is reasonable to assume that, say, 1% of these crimes would have resulted in the death of the victim.

The true number is probably about 10% of the victims in these cases would have died.

Basically, the fact that the crime was stopped by a civilian indicates that it wasn't a traffic violation or shoplifting. Thus, they are in all probability much more serious things such as assault or rape.

Now, back to our 1%. Guess what 1% of 1.5 million is?

15,000. Look at that; a tie. But... what if you take TWO percent?

30,000 lives saved.

And if we take the realistic percentage? 10%?

150,000 people saved!


Guns don't protect people, body armour does.

Hardly. Ironically, I do believe that body armor is illegal.

Unless you'd like to argue that it would be FAR better to embrace your philosophy (because you couldn't possibly be wrong), and thereby endanger thousands and thousands?


If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better.

What?!

Women. Senior citizens. People with health issues.

Your going to strip them of protection, watch them get maimed by some maniac, and blame them for not going to commando school or something?

It's a terrible thing to set restrictions, especially important ones, starting with the assumption that everyone in the world is like you.

OK, maybe you could beat up a criminal. How dare you force that on other people? How can you assume that I can. Or my parents, or my GRANDPARENTS!

That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.


Kill a killer and you become what you kill.

KillER, etemollogically speaking, indicates that killing is a way of life, a habit.

Self-defense is hardly habitual. As I said before, not many people have to do it twice. In fact I've not heard of anyone who had to do so, although I wouldn't doubt that a few out of 300 million people have.

Furthermore, even if you're a killer, that doesn't make you a murderer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You missed the part where I said I'd kill a man to protect my family. Get off your high horse, stop with the personnal attacks and stop being so childish. You want to laud the virtues of a society which is so defective that it cannot protect its most vulnerable and they feel the need to carry concealed weapons?

Get off it.

I'm perfectly willing to kill to protect the people I love and those who are vulnerable. Nevertheless, unlike you I am not going to pretend that makes me some sort of big hero any more than my ability to put a bullet through someone's head at 200 yards.

It's not a skill I'm proad of.

[Cute Wolf]

I think from now, we should think some other way to create less "friendly fire" accidents on home defense. A good alarm system is the best things, yet, if all are clear, we should just slam our axe onto the intruder's head with no other responsibility other than feeling a bit guilty "and just clean up some evidence, as well explain anything to the police"....

Wait..... I think, what did you do if you spot an unknown female in the night in your garage? are you just say, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!?!
https://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee103/lepapillonperdu/kuntilanak.jpg

I think our previous discussion about burglars are assumed in "The burglars are male". If you are face female burglars and kill her, some feminist will undoubtly sued you and trying to sent you to jail.....
:furious3:

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You missed the part where I said I'd kill a man to protect my family.

Apparently. Perhaps it was because that statement was buried by these:


Necessity is necessity, doesn't make it right. If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better. That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.


Kill a killer and you become what you kill.


When is killing itself not an evil act?


It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

How are you saying that you would kill to protect your family and then say all that? I don't understand how this is consistent at all.


Get off your high horse, stop with the personnal attacks and stop being so childish.

Childish, indeed, to present facts and statistics instead of rants and pontification.



I'm perfectly willing to kill to protect the people I love and those who are vulnerable.

Interesting point that you are willing also to protect THOSE WHO ARE VULNERABLE.

That is the essence of conceal&carry. It's about protecting the people around you as much as protecting yourself.


Nevertheless, unlike you I am not going to pretend that makes me some sort of big hero any more than my ability to put a bullet through someone's head at 200 yards.

What were you saying about high horses, personal attacks, and childishness?

When was I proud of killing a human being? When did I say anything except that the life of a human being is a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly or flippantly?


It's not a skill I'm proad of.


I don't appreciate the implication that the rest of us glory in bloodshed.

No one has said that; you stuffed it in our mouths.

I mean, if you really honestly thought that we felt that way, then you'd be totally legitimate to say the things you've said. That being the case, we can come to the point that really we don't disagree here; it's simply a matter of miscommunication of sorts.

Essentially, we are defending the point that CCL is actually to preserve life, not to take it so flippantly as you infer.

If, however, you're just spouting stuff like that to make a point, that's a different matter entirely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think from now, we should think some other way to create less "friendly fire" accidents on home defense. A good alarm system is the best things, yet, if all are clear, we should just slam our axe onto the intruder's head with no other responsibility other than feeling a bit guilty "and just clean up some evidence, as well explain anything to the police"....

Wait..... I think, what did you do if you spot an unknown female in the night in your garage? are you just say, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!?!
https://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee103/lepapillonperdu/kuntilanak.jpg

I think our previous discussion about burglars are assumed in "The burglars are male". If you are face female burglars and kill her, some feminist will undoubtly sued you and trying to sent you to jail.....
:furious3:

WHY do you have to be so trigger happy. Take a stick instead of an axe, you don't have to make someone bleed to stop them, you certainly don't have to kill them.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Let me put it this way:

I can respect your choice not to use firearms due to your feeling that they somehow cause greater loss of life than axes, cricket bats etc.

However, when you force that on other people, you are assuming that they are physically cabable and proficient with axes and cricket bats, which is unacceptable. You can't make an assumption like that and just leave the people who AREN'T capable stranded with no means of personal defense.

Secondly, it's quite unfair to brand all of those people as dreadful people.

You've said it yourself: you could kill a man with a cricket bat. Yet you choose not to.

The vast, VAST majority of law-abiding handgun owners feel the same way! Just because they defend themselves with a different piece of hardware doesn't mean that they will somehow be ever killing people ere they get out in public.

By the way, you do realise that it's quite easy to shoot to wound rather than to kill? Very, very easy.

It's no harder to shoot a leg than it is to whack one with a bat.

Don't miss my last post, by the way; we posted at the same time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maximus, I seriously suggest you look at the posts of the others in this topic, and have a look at who you have aligned yourself with.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Maximus, I seriously suggest you look at the posts of the others in this topic, and have a look at who you have aligned yourself with.

I align myself, with myself.

Come come. Don't pull up a bunch of other people's arguments and try to defeat me on that basis.

I would appreciate it if you respond to me on the basis of my own arguments. :beam:

Catagorially, sentence-by-sentence (paragraph-by-paragraph at least) is preferrable.

However, I do hear you. I agree that some posters here have been rather flippant. On the other hand, I think you have inferred some things into their statements that they did not intend.

For instance, since I understand their viewpoint, I understand how they mean to say some things.

Cute Wolf's comment on female criminals, for instance, may seem skewed to you, but I hear what he's saying and it's a legitimate point.

[Lemur]

Hmm, in Washington state anybody over 21 with no felonies can get a CPL - which allows them to carry a concealed pistol. No training required.
Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

Right on.

I've thought this as well. It's extremely frustrating, and I know how you feel, although I know I've been guilty of imperfect handling myself.

And I really think it's horrific that the government doesn't SUPPORT firearms training! It is knowingly and willfully endangering the general public, and it makes me sick.

They tell people to leave a room with a gun in it. This is just terrible. Because every day, somebody without training comes into contact with a firearm. And often, this results in injury. I know a guy who's very experienced with firearms, and the way he put it is that he'd prefer to have a drunk guy (who understands firearms) with a gun rather than someone with no experience.

I mean, it's like shoving people in the driver's seat with no instruction. Sick.

Sadly, it's a real catch-22. You can't require firearms training, because it's a right. But the gov't could at least support it and tell people they should, although I don't think that fits in to their agenda.

You may notice that people who are familiar with guns are not scared of them. :beam: Well, if everybody knew guns and wasn't scared of them, the dems might lose some political capital, since they make quite a bit on firearms fear-mongering.

Furthermore, not training people means there are more accidents. More accidents means you can make a better argument to ban guns entirely. Sick, twisted, disgusting, but I wouldn't be surprised.

So in the end we have to promote training in a personal, community, grass-roots sort of way.

[Strike For The South]

Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.



Killing boars and cougars at close range.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Killing boars and cougars at close range.

You tell 'em! :beam:

Handguns are quite handy for hunting, 'tis true.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

If you want to own a firearm you should be able to demonstrate a military-level competancy on the drills for your chosen weapon, including loading, unloading, stoppages and making safe; also correct cleaning and maintainance.

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Competancy tests should be retaken every six months, failure to comply should automatically result in suspension of license. Seperate licenses should be issued for every weapon.

As to your own incident, Lemur, I've had a rifle in my back (which REALLY upset me), in your situation I'd be tempted to pistol whip him, except the idiot might have it loaded.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory?

No. You shouldn't have to take classes to exercise a right. I wouldn't be opposed to some basic training in schools though.


Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

Yes, there are idiots. You probably handled that the best way possible. I still think classes in school are better than mandatory training. Heck, the government could subsidize classes for adults as well. But I can't agree to requiring training.



Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Why? I do it all the time safely.


Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

For my inability to throw small bits of lead at killing velocities?

CR

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You still haven't responded to my posts. :beadyeyes2:


If you want to own a firearm you should be able to demonstrate a military-level competancy on the drills for your chosen weapon, including loading, unloading, stoppages and making safe; also correct cleaning and maintainance.

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Competancy tests should be retaken every six months, failure to comply should automatically result in suspension of license. Seperate licenses should be issued for every weapon.

As to your own incident, Lemur, I've had a rifle in my back (which REALLY upset me), in your situation I'd be tempted to pistol whip him, except the idiot might have it loaded.

Why?

I'm serious.

Show me evidence that this would be a good thing.

Obviously, it's a massive restriction to gun ownership. And not because people are incompetent; because people don't like to jump through millions of hoops.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out again and again statistically that civilians are not that much of a liability with firearms.

I made the point about car accidents. You brushed it off because cars aren't "meant" to kill.

Yet they kill more people than guns do! 43,300

And since they're not made for it, nor can they be used for self-defence, I'd say that cars are even WORSE for it!

[drone]

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home. :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home. :inquisitive:

Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.


You still haven't responded to my posts. :beadyeyes2:

Why?

I'm serious.

Show me evidence that this would be a good thing.

Obviously, it's a massive restriction to gun ownership. And not because people are incompetent; because people don't like to jump through millions of hoops.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out again and again statistically that civilians are not that much of a liability with firearms.

I made the point about car accidents. You brushed it off because cars aren't "meant" to kill.

Yet they kill more people than guns do! 43,300

And since they're not made for it, nor can they be used for self-defence, I'd say that cars are even WORSE for it!

Those are pretty much the requirements militaries place on their soldiers. It's called TOET, Testing of Elementary Training. If you don't check the safety catch before picking the weapon up. This isn't a "massive restriction", it merely weeds out those who don't really want a gun or aren't safe with one. Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

In principle, no one should handle a weapon they are not certified on. To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

Still bad and unnecessary.

During the inquisition, they offered to strangle you to death rather than burn you if you signed a confession.

But, frankly, I don't see much about strangulation to be happy about. ;) Get my drift?


Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.

Respond to my other posts, will ya?!? Do I have to repost them or what?

Anyways, yes, really.

That is an insane restriction. You seem to think that you have all the time in the world to react when you're house is broken into.

Man, a criminal can be in and OUT in a matter of minutes. Usually the police are too late.

So don't tell me that from the time you actually realize someone is in your house, you can get up, fumble with your keys, open TWO safes, get everything out, assemble it, and be all set.

Rediculous. We are talking about SECONDS' worth of time here, not minutes.

And guess what you can do to stop an idiot child from picking up and loading Daddy's gun?

TRAIN 'EM, DANGIT!!! Yes, personal responsibility!!! You cannot legislate personal responsibility! It doesn't work.


To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. ;) And driving is not a means of self-defense, as guns are.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Remember, posts #136 and #138. And #150.

Thankee kindly.

[Lemur]

You shouldn't have to take classes to exercise a right. I wouldn't be opposed to some basic training in schools though.
Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences. I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences.

They don't require you to pass an English exam before you can speak in public.


I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

Gee, maybe because no schooling is required to be able to practice free speech?


I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

Police don't prevent you from speaking until you can prove you've passed an exam about whether or not you can shout 'fire' in a movie theater. Being prevented from shouting 'bomb' is different from requiring firearms training. Shouting 'bomb' is a harmful act in and of itself. Not taking a firearms training class is not.

And you are saying he can't arm himself until he passes your test. And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

CR

[Lemur]

And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.
Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Upon receipt of warning that my recent posts have been rather pointed, I have reviewed said post and indeed I was out of line.

Apologies, all, and of course to Philipvs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

As would I. But I think the better method would be instruction in school. It's useful knowledge, after all, and that way is more constitutionally compatible. Plus more people will be educated, and it'll help the people who don't own guns but have friends who do.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still bad and unnecessary.

During the inquisition, they offered to strangle you to death rather than burn you if you signed a confession.

But, frankly, I don't see much about strangulation to be happy about. ;) Get my drift?

Never heard this about the Inquisition. It sounds like a bare-faced lie (not yours) because the Church doesn't kill people, it hands them off to the state. Also, it isn't legally allowed to forsake a penitant. If you repent you are forgiven, pretty much Canon Law 101.


Respond to my other posts, will ya?!? Do I have to repost them or what?

In time, I feel this issue is currently more pertinant.

Anyways, yes, really.


That is an insane restriction. You seem to think that you have all the time in the world to react when you're house is broken into.

Man, a criminal can be in and OUT in a matter of minutes. Usually the police are too late.

So don't tell me that from the time you actually realize someone is in your house, you can get up, fumble with your keys, open TWO safes, get everything out, assemble it, and be all set.

I don't know, 30 seconds. I'd pratice it blindfolded. Loading a magazine into a weapon should be as natural as tieing your shoelaces, if it isn't you haven't practiced enough. You shouldn't keep your weapon dissassembled anyway, you'll get gunk in the working parts and the oil on the bolt and spring will attract dust.


Rediculous. We are talking about SECONDS' worth of time here, not minutes.

Well, it should take more than 30 seconds for him to break in and get to you, your alarm should wake you up, and if he doesn't attack you you shouldn't really be shooting him. I don't really want to kill someone over a TV, even if it is a flatscreen.


And guess what you can do to stop an idiot child from picking up and loading Daddy's gun?

TRAIN 'EM, DANGIT!!! Yes, personal responsibility!!! You cannot legislate personal responsibility! It doesn't work.

There have already been several cases this year of under-tens shooting siblings by accident because the weapon was left loaded, and there have been many instances over the years of teens taking weapons from their parents and going nuts.


Driving is a priviledge, not a right. ;) And driving is not a means of self-defense, as guns are.

I believe your Constitution actually defines the right as that of a "Well regulated Militia". In any case, a right always comes with a responsibility. Requiring someone to be trained and safe, up to a military standard of basic competancy, is entirely reasonable in my view. It is what was required of me.

Such training is not difficult, a child can quite litterally by taught. In the UK the minimum age they are willing to train you to use a weapon is around 12 usually. Pass, you can put bullets down range; fail, sit in the corner and watch. This in a country that has some of the most restiricive gun-laws in the world.


And you are saying he can't arm himself until he passes your test. And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

CR

CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.


Upon receipt of warning that my recent posts have been rather pointed, I have reviewed said post and indeed I was out of line.

Apologies, all, and of course to Philipvs.

No worries, I would say you were no more than overly passionate.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

In time, I feel this issue is currently more pertinant.

Anyways, yes, really.

Fair enough. What you want to debate is what I want to debate.


I don't know, 30 seconds. I'd pratice it blindfolded. Loading a magazine into a weapon should be as natural as tieing your shoelaces, if it isn't you haven't practiced enough. You shouldn't keep your weapon dissassembled anyway, you'll get gunk in the working parts and the oil on the bolt and spring will attract dust.

That might be theoretically possible, I suppose. But only if it was a key-lock safe, not tumblers, dials, or the like.

Regardless, unless you're fully aware of a burglar's intent before he enters the house, you're still too late. How many seconds does it take you to walk from one room to the other, after all?


Well, it should take more than 30 seconds for him to break in and get to you, your alarm should wake you up, and if he doesn't attack you you shouldn't really be shooting him. I don't really want to kill someone over a TV, even if it is a flatscreen.

Again, that's assuming that you detect him while he is outside, which is rare because when a person is outside you don't start with the assumption that he must intend to break in.

Furthermore, I don't want to kill someone over a TV either. You seem to assume that possession of a firearm = instant death to burglars.

On the contrary, often burglars freeze. I sure would.

I mean, think of it this way:

If a burglar comes in, and he really IS only after the TV, as you say, then as soon as he is confronted and threatened with lethal force, he will do a very quick risk assessment in his head. He will realize quite quickly that nothing that he came for is worth even the remotest possibility of death. So he will be compliant.

If, on the other hand, a burglar actually gives a homeowner a reason to shoot him after being confronted, that probably means that said burglar had quite a bit more invested in it. He could be a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist, for instance.

The reason I say that is because, for a burglar to attack an armed homeowner, he is either

a:) extremely foolhardy; nay, raving mad
b:) has no other choice (that is, the nature of his crime is such that arrest is not an option in his mind)
C:) ARMED

And if a criminal is armed, that tells me that either he merely intends to wave it around to scare people, or he has much more deadly intentions in mind. In the case of home invasion, I'd say the latter.


There have already been several cases this year of under-tens shooting siblings by accident because the weapon was left loaded, and there have been many instances over the years of teens taking weapons from their parents and going nuts.

This is extremely unfortunate, and we have here been discussing the importance of firearms education. And it is a real issue.

I'd say the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned: small children making bizarre mistakes. As far as teenage suicide goes, that is by no means the fault of the gun. Teens are sufficiently old that they are quite capable of determining consequences, as well as circumventing safety measures.


I believe your Constitution actually defines the right as that of a "Well regulated Militia".

That it does. And the next clause says that, as the right to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, the right of the people to bear arms shall LIKEWISE not be infringed.

It's a compound sentence, not a run-on. ;)


In any case, a right always comes with a responsibility.

Very true, but a deficit in responsibility cannot be solved through increased legislation upon or removal of said right.


Such training is not difficult, a child can quite litterally by taught. In the UK the minimum age they are willing to train you to use a weapon is around 12 usually.

As CR pointed out, the reason that we don't accept the idea is because of the politics involved and where it could lead.

It's a very similar idea with free speech. There are a good many people in this country who, by all reason, should be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, to put it bluntly.

Similarly, there are many people who are not qualified to vote and who, by doing so, pollute and distort the system.

But the fact is that Those people MUST retain their right to free speech and they MUST be allowed to vote!

Why is that? I'll tell you. Because, even though some people maybe shouldn't vote, if you create a means to determine WHO exactly is qualified, you create a massive danger to democracy.

Who decides whether people are qualified to vote or not?

See what I'm saying? It would not be hard for me to find a reason to broadly disqualify a large group of people who, by coincidence happen to disagree with my political views.

And I'm not saying that the instant that mandatory voting screenings are instituted, this will happen. I'm saying that all human behavior has a trend, and it isn't good in this case.

It would happen eventually.

So that is the fear behind gun registration/qualification. And a legitimate one too, I think.



CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.

But more is also required of them; it's by no means a direct comparison.


No worries, I would say you were no more than overly passionate.

I must say sir how very kind it is of you to say so. :bow: Whilst in all this time you have kept quite excellent composure.

:balloon:, if I may.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.

Well I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about constitutional rights.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Never heard this about the Inquisition. It sounds like a bare-faced lie (not yours) because the Church doesn't kill people, it hands them off to the state. Also, it isn't legally allowed to forsake a penitant. If you repent you are forgiven, pretty much Canon Law 101.

The garrotting of the repentant was reasonably commonplace. A poor source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Sentencing) (under Sentencing) but you will find the practice noted in several histories of the Inquisition. Of course, in theory this was done by the secular state.

As I understand the logic, burning was both exemplar and foretaste of the Inferno to which the heretic was dispatched. A penitant may still deserve death, but with the chance of Purgatory in which to repent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The garrotting of the repentant was reasonably commonplace. A poor source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Sentencing) (under Sentencing) but you will find the practice noted in several histories of the Inquisition. Of course, in theory this was done by the secular state.

As I understand the logic, burning was both exemplar and foretaste of the Inferno to which the heretic was dispatched. A penitant may still deserve death, but with the chance of Purgatory in which to repent.

Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

I will reply to everything else later.

[Furunculus]

Maximus, I seriously suggest you look at the posts of the others in this topic, and have a look at who you have aligned yourself with.
who has he aligned himself with?
is it me?
would that be so terrible?
explain.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

Well, I don't think even the Inquisition would have claimed that they were the very finest examples of Christian charity.

:beam:

[gaelic cowboy]

Well, I don't think even the Inquisition would have claimed that they were the very finest examples of Christian charity.

:beam:

Thats because nobody expects them Ta DA (hthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9Atp://)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That might be theoretically possible, I suppose. But only if it was a key-lock safe, not tumblers, dials, or the like.

Regardless, unless you're fully aware of a burglar's intent before he enters the house, you're still too late. How many seconds does it take you to walk from one room to the other, after all?

Well, most houses have the bedrooms as far away from the access as possible. Assuming you're all asleep, you should have several minutes to get between an intruder and your family. You should also have an alram, if your are afraid enough to buy a gun. Thsat will increase your warning time considerably.


Again, that's assuming that you detect him while he is outside, which is rare because when a person is outside you don't start with the assumption that he must intend to break in.

Alarm.


Furthermore, I don't want to kill someone over a TV either. You seem to assume that possession of a firearm = instant death to burglars.

On the contrary, often burglars freeze. I sure would.

I mean, think of it this way:

If a burglar comes in, and he really IS only after the TV, as you say, then as soon as he is confronted and threatened with lethal force, he will do a very quick risk assessment in his head. He will realize quite quickly that nothing that he came for is worth even the remotest possibility of death. So he will be compliant.

If, on the other hand, a burglar actually gives a homeowner a reason to shoot him after being confronted, that probably means that said burglar had quite a bit more invested in it. He could be a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist, for instance.

The reason I say that is because, for a burglar to attack an armed homeowner, he is either

a:) extremely foolhardy; nay, raving mad
b:) has no other choice (that is, the nature of his crime is such that arrest is not an option in his mind)
C:) ARMED

And if a criminal is armed, that tells me that either he merely intends to wave it around to scare people, or he has much more deadly intentions in mind. In the case of home invasion, I'd say the latter.

If you have agun, and he has a gun, someone is going to get shot. I'm not going to get into any kind of TV standoff. He's getting double tapped, centre of mass.


This is extremely unfortunate, and we have here been discussing the importance of firearms education. And it is a real issue.

I'd say the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned: small children making bizarre mistakes. As far as teenage suicide goes, that is by no means the fault of the gun. Teens are sufficiently old that they are quite capable of determining consequences, as well as circumventing safety measures.

Firearms should be under lock and key. The military keeps it's firearms under lock and key, so does the police, so do shooting clubs. Homeowners should be no less responsible. There is NO reason not to have a locked gun cabinet and seperate magazine.


That it does. And the next clause says that, as the right to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, the right of the people to bear arms shall LIKEWISE not be infringed.

It's a compound sentence, not a run-on. ;)

Likewise is an interesting word. It means, "in the same manner". So, a well regulated militia made up of well regulated personal ownership.


Very true, but a deficit in responsibility cannot be solved through increased legislation upon or removal of said right.

I see no reason not to legislate the responsibility alongside the right. The right is legislated for, after all.


As CR pointed out, the reason that we don't accept the idea is because of the politics involved and where it could lead.

It's a very similar idea with free speech. There are a good many people in this country who, by all reason, should be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, to put it bluntly.

Similarly, there are many people who are not qualified to vote and who, by doing so, pollute and distort the system.

But the fact is that Those people MUST retain their right to free speech and they MUST be allowed to vote!

Why is that? I'll tell you. Because, even though some people maybe shouldn't vote, if you create a means to determine WHO exactly is qualified, you create a massive danger to democracy.

Who decides whether people are qualified to vote or not?

See what I'm saying? It would not be hard for me to find a reason to broadly disqualify a large group of people who, by coincidence happen to disagree with my political views.

And I'm not saying that the instant that mandatory voting screenings are instituted, this will happen. I'm saying that all human behavior has a trend, and it isn't good in this case.

It would happen eventually.

So that is the fear behind gun registration/qualification. And a legitimate one too, I think.


I do appreciate the fear. Though it's worth remembering that the US army can quite easily role over most of your armer home owners.

Let me be very specific about what I am suggesting here. A very FUNDAMENTAL test, designed by your military, which would confirm an essential competancy. This would include complete military drills, field stripping and cleaning, and a basic understanding of safety. Rather than a ban on 5.56 NATO rifles, simply subject any private owner to the same basic test as a soldier in your army.

A well regulated militia needs to actually know how to use it's weapons. To be honest, I get the impression that a lot of Americans don't have basic skills, given that they seem to leave loaded guns lying around.


I must say sir how very kind it is of you to say so. :bow: Whilst in all this time you have kept quite excellent composure.

:balloon:, if I may.

Well, they're only guns. They're not that exciting, to be honest.:beam:

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, most houses have the bedrooms as far away from the access as possible. Assuming you're all asleep, you should have several minutes to get between an intruder and your family. You should also have an alram, if your are afraid enough to buy a gun. Thsat will increase your warning time considerably.

I suppose. But all the same it's the sort of thing that you can't effectively assign a standard. Personally I'd rather just keep a lock on my bedroom door, if I felt my kids would try to grab my guns.


If you have agun, and he has a gun, someone is going to get shot. I'm not going to get into any kind of TV standoff. He's getting double tapped, centre of mass.

Right. So we're agreed then.


Firearms should be under lock and key. The military keeps it's firearms under lock and key, so does the police, so do shooting clubs. Homeowners should be no less responsible. There is NO reason not to have a locked gun cabinet and seperate magazine.

Do you know how many kids die from unlocked guns per year? I don't; just asking. It would be useful to know.


Likewise is an interesting word. It means, "in the same manner". So, a well regulated militia made up of well regulated personal ownership.

But the original document doesn't say "likewise." Forgive my grammatical slip.


I see no reason not to legislate the responsibility alongside the right.

Right. So you can't make a law to force people to do what SHOULD BE common sense. The law doesn't work, and they should be responsible for their own foolishness.


I do appreciate the fear. Though it's worth remembering that the US army can quite easily role over most of your armer home owners.

Actually, it's an interesting concept, considering how well a veritable mob of homesteaders did against the most powerful army of the 18th Century. Granted, of course, the whole British army was not present. :beam:


Let me be very specific about what I am suggesting here. A very FUNDAMENTAL test, designed by your military, which would confirm an essential competancy. This would include complete military drills, field stripping and cleaning, and a basic understanding of safety. Rather than a ban on 5.56 NATO rifles, simply subject any private owner to the same basic test as a soldier in your army.

But what starts out as a simple, reasonable test can grow easily, as history has shown us time and again.


A well regulated militia needs to actually know how to use it's weapons.

Yes, but we're not a well-regulated militia. We're not talking about engaging in firefights, we're talking about personal protection.


Well, they're only guns. They're not that exciting, to be honest.:beam:

Good point. But, then, constitutional rights and people's lives are rather exciting. :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suppose. But all the same it's the sort of thing that you can't effectively assign a standard. Personally I'd rather just keep a lock on my bedroom door, if I felt my kids would try to grab my guns.

Right. So we're agreed then.

Do you know how many kids die from unlocked guns per year? I don't; just asking. It would be useful to know.

I don't know, but at least three stories make it accross the pond a year.



Right. So you can't make a law to force people to do what SHOULD BE common sense. The law doesn't work, and they should be responsible for their own foolishness.

Then why do you need to legislate the Right? For me this is a very simple thing, a firearm is far more dangerous than any other weapon. The ability to reach out and kill is an extremely powerful thing, and I fail to see why you object to testing whether someone understands the practical difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but do you know when a weapon is in a "safe" state and when "unloaded".


Actually, it's an interesting concept, considering how well a veritable mob of homesteaders did against the most powerful army of the 18th Century. Granted, of course, the whole British army was not present. :beam:

The British Army was not that powerful then, and they did reasonably well considering the pitiful leadership and pathetic logistical situation. The American army today is about 10,000% more efficient.


But what starts out as a simple, reasonable test can grow easily, as history has shown us time and again.

Easily stopped. The tests are kept identical to those in the military. You can even tie that to the Constitution under your "well regulated militia" clause. You should not be quite so suspicious of your government, you do elect it.


Yes, but we're not a well-regulated militia. We're not talking about engaging in firefights, we're talking about personal protection.

Then you shouldn't really be owning guns. You should be MUCH more upset about the poor state of law enforcement. Might I suggest getting rid of those silly sherifs and establishing proper County Police Departments.


Good point. But, then, constitutional rights and people's lives are rather exciting. :beam:

Well, such things do not concern me overmuch. My Lord Clinton and my Lord Bishop Exon make such concerns peripheral, so long as I may write my papers I have few concerns.

More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't know, but at least three stories make it accross the pond a year.

Not to make light of such things, but that does put it into perspective, doesn't it?


Then why do you need to legislate the Right?

Well, that's the point. Don't legislate it.


For me this is a very simple thing, a firearm is far more dangerous than any other weapon.

It has greater potential, yes.


The ability to reach out and kill is an extremely powerful thing, and I fail to see why you object to testing whether someone understands the practical difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon.

Considering that you have to know such a basic fact to be able to fire a "weapon," I think it's safe to say that you needn't worry about ignorance to THAT extent, certainly.


Please do not take this the wrong way, but do you know when a weapon is in a "safe" state and when "unloaded".

I say sir; either you have quite underestimated my intelligence, or you have little experience with firearms, and thus think that this could possibly be a complex question.

Either way, I shall oblige you. I remain quite amiable; not to worry. :beam:

A firearm (I would hasten to remind you that a firearm is not a "weapon" until it is fired in anger, so to speak) is considered 'unloaded' when the chamber and magazine are empty of ammunition.

A firearm is considered 'safe' when it is loaded, but uncocked. Thus it cannot discharge accidentally. I suppose you could consider it to be safe when it is cocked, but any of a number of safety designs are used to prevent discharge, such as trigger safety, slide safety, grip safety, etc.

If that's really all you want; for people to have that level of understanding... well I think you can rest assured that anybody who is smart enough to undergo the business transaction of acquiring a firearm and ammunition is quite capable of achieving this level of awareness.

Functioning a firearm is really not as complicated as you make it out to be.


The British Army was not that powerful then, and they did reasonably well considering the pitiful leadership and pathetic logistical situation. The American army today is about 10,000% more efficient.

Well, you are right. I might have thought of the fact that the British had no armored vehicles or aircraft. :beam:

But you get my point I trust. Not to say that we'd necessarily win, as it seems quite improbable.


Easily stopped.

For the moment, perhaps. But what about one or two generations down the road?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a bowl of milk. It's as simple as that.


You can even tie that to the Constitution under your "well regulated militia" clause.

No no no, the point is that you can't.


You should not be quite so suspicious of your government, you do elect it.

Frankly, sir, there are a good many politicians who have openly expressed their desire to literally ban all semi-automatic firearms, as preposturous a notion as that seems.

I don't think my suspicions are by any means unwarranted.


Then you shouldn't really be owning guns.

What? I don't see quite where you pulled this from. Non sequitur, so to speak.

I take it that you're saying that we should own guns if, and only if, we intend to be part of the "well-regulated militia."

Ah, but there you're messing with the Constitution again.

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.


You should be MUCH more upset about the poor state of law enforcement. Might I suggest getting rid of those silly sherifs and establishing proper County Police Departments.

What's so dreadful about the state of our law enforcement?

If you mean that police aren't able to intervene in a crime such as stopping a burglar as he enters my house, well... there's not a policeman made that can fortell the future.

Unless you'd like us all to carry policemen in our pocket.


More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

I really don't like generalizations.

It's a stereotype that Americans are obsessed with guns. Not even half of us own one. The reason we have so many is because gun owners tend to have multiples. ;)

I mean, golfers have upward of 20 clubs per person. Golf isn't an overwhelmingly popular sport by any means, yet we have all these golf clubs! Does it mean Americans are obsessed with golf?

However, I do here you on the general ignorance of the population. Actually, the ignorant ones tend to be the ones who support such amusingly skewed ideas as "assault weapons" and the like. :laugh4:

I'd be thrilled if people were less ignorant about guns. That would mean there would be more of us to support them. ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

A pretty ignorant statement, if I do say so myself. :bow:

[miotas]

I think this boils down to people in the USA(and anyone else without anti-gun laws) love their guns and so they have them, and anyone with anti-gun laws hates guns and so we don't have them.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) is a large part of the reason why 99% of Aussies will tell you that guns have absolutely no place outside of a farm or a sports shooting range, and even then they must be strongly regulated.


Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

Come on PVC, I'm not gonna make any comments on the present day church, but you seem like a smart guy, you should be well aware that, in the past the church was a horrible, corrupt organisation and countless terrible deeds were committed in it's name.

[ajaxfetish]

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.

Just for clarification, the independent clause status isn't what's important here. In the sentence,

1) If they are members of a well-regulated militia, the people may bear arms

"the people may bear arms" is an independent clause, yet it's accompanying subordinate clause restricts its meaning. The wording of the US 2nd amendment is different, though.

2) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In sentence 2, the initial subordinate clause lays out the reason for the right to exist, but does not restrict the main clause as in sentence 1. It is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State that the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; however, the right applies whether an individual is a part of such a militia or not (and of course, in a sense, all able-bodied men at the least would be part of such a militia). Of course, there have been numerous and conflicting interpretations of the sentence, and it is a little confusing to some people what with the ablative absolute and the main clause being a passive construction, but I don't think it's actually ambiguous, as some people make it out to be.

Ajax

[Husar]

Good analysis of the sentence ajax, I just don't know what you mean with the "ablative absolute"?
I only remember ablative from latin and can't really find one here. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not to make light of such things, but that does put it into perspective, doesn't it?

I'm not sure it does, because those are just the ones that make it over here. That could be a a 5th, or even a 10th. While it's still a small number, it is significant.


Well, that's the point. Don't legislate it.

I don't understand, you have the "right" to bear arms legislated for, but not the attendant responsibility to be competant. That's the current state of affairs.


It has greater potential, yes.

Considering that you have to know such a basic fact to be able to fire a "weapon," I think it's safe to say that you needn't worry about ignorance to THAT extent, certainly.

I say sir; either you have quite underestimated my intelligence, or you have little experience with firearms, and thus think that this could possibly be a complex question.

Neither, it's merely a way to quickly guage the level of your understanding, and to demonstrate my own. It helps to know who you're talking to, and it's fairer than to ask a relatively pointless question, such as the average pitch of rifling, or the practical operation of AR-15 derivative weapons (gas operated, rotating bolt)


Either way, I shall oblige you. I remain quite amiable; not to worry. :beam:

A firearm (I would hasten to remind you that a firearm is not a "weapon" until it is fired in anger, so to speak) is considered 'unloaded' when the chamber and magazine are empty of ammunition.

A firearm is considered 'safe' when it is loaded, but uncocked. Thus it cannot discharge accidentally. I suppose you could consider it to be safe when it is cocked, but any of a number of safety designs are used to prevent discharge, such as trigger safety, slide safety, grip safety, etc.

If that's really all you want; for people to have that level of understanding... well I think you can rest assured that anybody who is smart enough to undergo the business transaction of acquiring a firearm and ammunition is quite capable of achieving this level of awareness.

Functioning a firearm is really not as complicated as you make it out to be.

Absolutely right, though I have never heard the distinction between "firearm" and "weapon", in fact the two mean the same thing, because "arm" means "weapon". So, we've established that the principles of operating a weapon are simple. I pose to you, again, the question of why testing that basic knowledge before allowing someone to operate one is so onerous.


Well, you are right. I might have thought of the fact that the British had no armored vehicles or aircraft. :beam:

But you get my point I trust. Not to say that we'd necessarily win, as it seems quite improbable.

I do take your point, I'm just making the counter-point that things have moved on a LOT since then.


For the moment, perhaps. But what about one or two generations down the road?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a bowl of milk. It's as simple as that.[/quote

I really don't see why. Labour has run roughshod over our Constitution, if the Conservatives don't undo the damage they'll be out of their ears soonest. Democracies only collapse when the people want them to.

[quote]No no no, the point is that you can't.

Why not, it's pretty clear that your Constitution links the two. You own guns in order to be part of the militia, and to protect your liberty.


Frankly, sir, there are a good many politicians who have openly expressed their desire to literally ban all semi-automatic firearms, as preposturous a notion as that seems.

I don't think my suspicions are by any means unwarranted.

Well, they might ban semi-automatic weapons, but that wouldn't make you less safe, or more oppressed. It would just mean that you can't have semi-automatic weapons. At the moment, if you exercise your right to resist Federal authority, the Feds use snipers, bombs, machine guns and armoured vehichels. The Afgans and Iraqis couldn't defeat the US Military, the US population certainly can't.

After all, the Afganis are on home ground and have RPGs, they still haven't won a single major battle.


What? I don't see quite where you pulled this from. Non sequitur, so to speak.

I take it that you're saying that we should own guns if, and only if, we intend to be part of the "well-regulated militia."

Ah, but there you're messing with the Constitution again.

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.

My interpretation is that the militia is intended to protect against tyranny, and so is personal ownership of weaponry. The two are linked in spirit and purpose.


What's so dreadful about the state of our law enforcement?

If you mean that police aren't able to intervene in a crime such as stopping a burglar as he enters my house, well... there's not a policeman made that can fortell the future.

Unless you'd like us all to carry policemen in our pocket.

I'm just amazed by the primative nature of American arrangements. In many counties you elect the head of your law enforcement. Policemen should be impartial and professional defenders of the peace, I don't see how elected officials can do that.

I really don't like generalizations.


It's a stereotype that Americans are obsessed with guns. Not even half of us own one. The reason we have so many is because gun owners tend to have multiples. ;)

I mean, golfers have upward of 20 clubs per person. Golf isn't an overwhelmingly popular sport by any means, yet we have all these golf clubs! Does it mean Americans are obsessed with golf?

However, I do here you on the general ignorance of the population. Actually, the ignorant ones tend to be the ones who support such amusingly skewed ideas as "assault weapons" and the like. :laugh4:

I'd be thrilled if people were less ignorant about guns. That would mean there would be more of us to support them. ;)

Leaving aside the "man in the street", your media glamorises guns in a way that few other developed nations do. I expect much of this has to do with the "frontier" myth, in the same way as Europeans are often obsessed with swords and axes.

[ajaxfetish]

Good analysis of the sentence ajax, I just don't know what you mean with the "ablative absolute"?
I only remember ablative from latin and can't really find one here. :shrug:
Yeah, I borrowed the term "ablative absolute" from Latin, since I'm not sure yet how to describe the form in English. It refers to participial phrases such as "Hannibal being near Rome," "Taxes being on the rise," or "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," which in Latin consist of a noun and passive participle in the ablative case (in English they come out a bit longer, since we can't do passives with just one word). The word absolute is used because it is only loosely connected to the rest of the sentence, giving general information on the circumstances but not otherwise restricting meaning.

Ajax

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Aggh; I wrote a reply and then the site went out; I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

Check this post later for an edit, which will be my full reply. :bow:

[Hooahguy]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home. :inquisitive:
indeed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this boils down to people in the USA(and anyone else without anti-gun laws) love their guns and so they have them, and anyone with anti-gun laws hates guns and so we don't have them.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) is a large part of the reason why 99% of Aussies will tell you that guns have absolutely no place outside of a farm or a sports shooting range, and even then they must be strongly regulated.

Yet despite the many similar incidents in America guns remain enduringly popular.


Come on PVC, I'm not gonna make any comments on the present day church, but you seem like a smart guy, you should be well aware that, in the past the church was a horrible, corrupt organisation and countless terrible deeds were committed in it's name.

I know quite a bit about the Church and it's prosecution of heresy, especially in England. I can tell you that to charactarise it as, "a horrible, corrupt organisation" is not only untrue but also deeply unfair. Heresy was percieved to be a disease of the soul in a time when spiritual health was of paramount importance and physical health irrelevant.

That the State at times took Draconian measures is a sign that the leaders of the Church, etc., did care, not that they didn't. Even so, the execution of the penitant for past offenses was illegal under Canon Law and theologically indefensible; by contrast the execution of the heretic was an act of desperation and a final resort after all else had failed.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Never mind; I decided to make a whole new post instead of editing the other one.


I'm not sure it does, because those are just the ones that make it over here. That could be a a 5th, or even a 10th. While it's still a small number, it is significant.

I did a little research. I got 500 accident-related deaths per year.



I don't understand, you have the "right" to bear arms legislated for, but not the attendant responsibility to be competant. That's the current state of affairs.

It's not legislated for. "Legislated for" means it's a priviledge. The Constitution recognizes rights; legislation grants priviledge.

Recognization means that a right is not in the government's power to give in the first place; it is something that inherently belongs to all people. Granting something means that it can also be taken away.


Neither, it's merely a way to quickly guage the level of your understanding, and to demonstrate my own. It helps to know who you're talking to, and it's fairer than to ask a relatively pointless question, such as the average pitch of rifling, or the practical operation of AR-15 derivative weapons (gas operated, rotating bolt)

Very good then. :bow: I agree with you on that. I hope, then, that you find me a sufficiently reasonable fellow. :beam:

Well, I must say it's nice to know that you are familiar with the topic also. It's pretty irritating to debate people who dub all firearms as 'machine guns' and foolishness like that.


Absolutely right, though I have never heard the distinction between "firearm" and "weapon", in fact the two mean the same thing, because "arm" means "weapon". So, we've established that the principles of operating a weapon are simple. I pose to you, again, the question of why testing that basic knowledge before allowing someone to operate one is so onerous.

I suppose you've got an etymological point there.

The idea is that, whatever the meaning, a word will paint a picture in people's minds. Usually that picture is consistent with the meaning of the word.

However, "weapon" makes people think that a given firearm is some sort of armor-piercing, cop-killing, long-range, armor-piercing, depleted-uranium cannon-thingy.

And this is demonstrated by the anti-gun side, who makes good use of terms to scare people. "Assault Weapons" is a perfect example, even though I doubt people could find a documented case of one being used in an assault (though it has happened).

But of course I realize that you're not trying to do this; I'm just saying that it happens, you know?


I do take your point, I'm just making the counter-point that things have moved on a LOT since then.

Right on. :2thumbsup:


I really don't see why. Labour has run roughshod over our Constitution, if the Conservatives don't undo the damage they'll be out of their ears soonest. Democracies only collapse when the people want them to.

Several thousand years of recorded human history is why.

I mean, it's so obvious. The anti0gun crowd already wants to do away with guns entirely. Obviously they can't do it in one move; this is just a stepping stone.

Democracies collapse just like everything else. All nations and governmental systems have shelf lives.


Why not, it's pretty clear that your Constitution links the two. You own guns in order to be part of the militia, and to protect your liberty.

We may need an Attorney General in here for this one. :beam:

However, think of it this way. We know for sure that the Constitution doesn't say that anyone outside militia shall be prohibited from bearing arms. But this is exactly what a lot of people are driving at when they say that the Constitution only stipulates a "well-regulated militia."


Well, they might ban semi-automatic weapons, but that wouldn't make you less safe, or more oppressed. It would just mean that you can't have semi-automatic weapons. At the moment, if you exercise your right to resist Federal authority, the Feds use snipers, bombs, machine guns and armoured vehichels. The Afgans and Iraqis couldn't defeat the US Military, the US population certainly can't.

You cannot argue any change to anything simply on the basis that "it won't hurt." It has to be BETTER.

You are trying to change existing law. Since you are changing something that is ALREADY in place (i.e. has already been validated), the burden of proof is on you. You must show that your way is better, not that it's the same, or why bother changing it? Yet this is the most common argument I see for the assault weapons ban. (Actually it's very nature is that it ISN'T an argument.)

And really I would argue that it would open the door to further restriction. That's the whole point.

The anti-gun side is constantly picking away at the Second Amendment with stuff like this. Thus, we will give into them when they can show that their ideas are profitable (reduce crime), but those measures have already been passed. Now the only ones left might save some lives, but only at the expense of more.

At this point, we have to draw a line where we won't let the anti-gun side continue to wipe away gun rights.

Thus, we have chosen to take a stand at Assault Weapons, because no one can show that they are inherently dangerous, have uniquely defining characteristics, or that they substantially contribute to crime!


After all, the Afganis are on home ground and have RPGs, they still haven't won a single major battle.

But keep in mind that, even though they "haven't won a major battle," we still don't fully occupy their territory, it is inevitable that we will leave eventually, and their old government is still quite functional.

My interpretation is that the militia is intended to protect against tyranny, and so is personal ownership of weaponry. The two are linked in spirit and purpose.


Leaving aside the "man in the street", your media glamorises guns in a way that few other developed nations do. I expect much of this has to do with the "frontier" myth, in the same way as Europeans are often obsessed with swords and axes.

Really? Tell me about this media; I'd like to see it.

The general media is in league with the anti-gun side. Perhaps a bit of a stereotype that the media glamorizes guns.

Unless you mean hollywood movies like Die Hard and such. But if you think that is a major glamorization of guns, then those movies also glamorize car accidents, wide-scale destruction of property, theft on a massive scale, etc.

Anyways, the REAL media is quite against guns. Look at this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8


Yet despite the many similar incidents in America guns remain enduringly popular.

Because you flatly ignore the hundreds of thousands of incidents that save lives!

Take a single ugly case of someone commiting a violent crime with a firearm, and then use it to overturn the hundreds of other, less-glamorous cases of self-defense.

There are a lot of sites like this (http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html), as well as forums dedicated to self-defence, that will show you account after account of people who would be dead today.

[Furunculus]

This is what axe's are for:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6244076/Farmers-daughter-disarms-terrorist-and-shoots-him-dead-with-AK47.html

no moralising, no legalising, this woman stuck an axe in a wanted terrorist who broke into her own home. i am delighted!

[Husar]

This is what axe's are for:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6244076/Farmers-daughter-disarms-terrorist-and-shoots-him-dead-with-AK47.html

no moralising, no legalising, this woman stuck an axe in a wanted terrorist who broke into her own home. i am delighted!

I'd marry her. :2thumbsup: :sweatdrop:

It's axes though, plural, not genitive. ~;)

[Olaf The Great]

"a habitual offender who had just been released from jail."

He deserved it.

[AlexanderSextus]

You should be MUCH more upset about the poor state of law enforcement. Might I suggest getting rid of those silly sherifs and establishing proper County Police Departments.

In NJ, we have sheriffs, but no Deputies. instead, we have Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's) and centralized police departments as you mentioned, and said LEO's report to a Chief of Police who in turn reports to the County Sheriff.