That's What Katanas Are For

[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?

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?

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!?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.....

[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!?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.....

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.

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. 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!

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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.

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.