CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

Well it can't be lawfully now can it. So that leaves pretty much stealing them. So how do they steal them, pretty much by breaking into homes and on occasion a gun shop. So if they're breaking into homes and are able to steal them, what does that say about homeowners and guns not being locked up.

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

I'm against punishing the victims of crimes. Similar to trying to charge a sexual assault victim for wearing seductive clothing. Maybe we should try punishing criminals instead of their victims?

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

I'm against punishing the victims of crimes. Similar to trying to charge a sexual assault victim for wearing seductive clothing. Maybe we should try punishing criminals instead of their victims?

I recall a conversation when I was visiting VT the day after the Las Vegas massacre in 2016 with some women from TX. They were a little concerned about increased regulations as their husbands were all hunters. We made the point that there had been one gun massacre in Australai (similar population to TX) in 4 decades and the Australian population supported a multi-billion $ gun buyback scheme, as well as necessary regulation

We described the laws in place in Australia around access to and storage of firearms. They were of the view that their husbands' hunting would not be disrupted if those laws were adopted in TX.

Kent350787 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

I'm against punishing the victims of crimes. Similar to trying to charge a sexual assault victim for wearing seductive clothing. Maybe we should try punishing criminals instead of their victims?

I recall a conversation when I was visiting VT the day after the Las Vegas massacre in 2016 with some women from TX. They were a little concerned about increased regulations as their husbands were all hunters. We made the point that there had been one gun massacre in Australai (similar population to TX) in 4 decades and the Australian population supported a multi-billion $ gun buyback scheme, as well as necessary regulation

We described the laws in place in Australia around access to and storage of firearms. They were of the view that their husbands' hunting would not be disrupted if those laws were adopted in TX.

I'm not as concerned about hunting as I am about self-defense.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

Well it can't be lawfully now can it. So that leaves pretty much stealing them. So how do they steal them, pretty much by breaking into homes and on occasion a gun shop. So if they're breaking into homes and are able to steal them, what does that say about homeowners and guns not being locked up.

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

johns624 wrote:

If If a gun is in a locked house, it is secured.

The subject of this whole thread makes that statement sound just a little silly.

TriJets wrote:

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

How about you give us your solution and what guns we can have?

Well, it seems most folks would consider reasonable measures to include something like:

A licence.
A test of competency.
Insurance.

But as soon as anyone starts to discuss it, all of a sudden they're "trying to take away all of our guns".

The problem is that most of those ideas put an undue burden on the poor, which would likely be unconstitutional and would disproportionately impact POC.

I no plenty of white people who would be burdened by that too.

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

No, not at all. It's not the good guys who are causing the gun violence.

johns624 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

If If a gun is in a locked house, it is secured. If someone breaks into the house, they're committing a crime.

This! And if they steal a gun from a locked house they broke into that's yet another crime, and probably prohibited persons possession charge as well.

It’s the gun arms race of the USA that creates their insane amount of gun violence. To de-escalate, someone’s got to start, and it ain’t the bad guys.

Law enforcement should deal with those, and you’ve got more law enforcement than almost anyone else.

ItnStln wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

No, not at all. It's not the good guys who are causing the gun violence.

M564038 wrote:

It’s the gun arms race of the USA that creates their insane amount of gun violence. To de-escalate, someone’s got to start, and it ain’t the bad guys.

Law enforcement should deal with those, and you’ve got more law enforcement than almost anyone else.

ItnStln wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

No, not at all. It's not the good guys who are causing the gun violence.

Sorry, but there is no circumstance in which law-abiding citizens are going to knowingly surrender their weapons and let criminals do as they wish. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away. I already stated that when my wife was home alone and someone broke in, it took the police 15 minutes to get there. There is a nationwide shortage of police officers right now. Allowing armed criminals to do as they wish, unopposed, with no ability to defend oneself is not going to happen.

bpatus297 wrote:

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

Serious enforcement of the rules? Give the relevant authorities the tools to do their work. Including a database of who owns/sells what.

CaptHadley wrote:

The tone deaf award of the week goes to republican rep thomas massie. Nice family photo, just a couple days after another mass school shooting. Seriously is there something wrong with their brain functions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

While we can go on debating gun control and related matters, can we all agree that this guy is the the winner of the moron of the year award? And to think people actually voted for him......

ER757 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

The tone deaf award of the week goes to republican rep thomas massie. Nice family photo, just a couple days after another mass school shooting. Seriously is there something wrong with their brain functions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

While we can go on debating gun control and related matters, can we all agree that this guy is the the winner of the moron of the year award? And to think people actually voted for him......

He is just putting out there what every gun enthusiast thinks privately. Muh guns!

petertenthije wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

Serious enforcement of the rules? Give the relevant authorities the tools to do their work. Including a database of who owns/sells what.

Agreed, but he said "tighter legislation", I was referencing that.

johns624 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

If If a gun is in a locked house, it is secured. If someone breaks into the house, they're committing a crime.

Ya think? If the criminal is able to A) break into your home B) locate the safe with gun(s) and C) make off with said safe or it's contents than the homeowner should face any penalty that the criminal commits with that gun. Obviously your safekeeping of the guns wasn't that good, so for your failings at that, you get to accept the punishment along with the criminal. Kind of like the "Latest Mass School Shooting" ™ parents are.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

It’s the gun arms race of the USA that creates their insane amount of gun violence. To de-escalate, someone’s got to start, and it ain’t the bad guys.

Law enforcement should deal with those, and you’ve got more law enforcement than almost anyone else.

ItnStln wrote:

No, not at all. It's not the good guys who are causing the gun violence.

Sorry, but there is no circumstance in which law-abiding citizens are going to knowingly surrender their weapons and let criminals do as they wish. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away. I already stated that when my wife was home alone and someone broke in, it took the police 15 minutes to get there. There is a nationwide shortage of police officers right now. Allowing armed criminals to do as they wish, unopposed, with no ability to defend oneself is not going to happen.

Yes, it's just total anarchy/chaos out there right now.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

It’s the gun arms race of the USA that creates their insane amount of gun violence. To de-escalate, someone’s got to start, and it ain’t the bad guys.

Law enforcement should deal with those, and you’ve got more law enforcement than almost anyone else.

Sorry, but there is no circumstance in which law-abiding citizens are going to knowingly surrender their weapons and let criminals do as they wish. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away. I already stated that when my wife was home alone and someone broke in, it took the police 15 minutes to get there. There is a nationwide shortage of police officers right now. Allowing armed criminals to do as they wish, unopposed, with no ability to defend oneself is not going to happen.

Yes, it's just total anarchy/chaos out there right now.

Did you miss the riots in 2020? Are you aware how many home invasions there are each year in the United States? Just because you, personally, aren't experiencing something doesn't mean that it isn't real.

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

If If a gun is in a locked house, it is secured. If someone breaks into the house, they're committing a crime.

Ya think? If the criminal is able to A) break into your home B) locate the safe with gun(s) and C) make off with said safe or it's contents than the homeowner should face any penalty that the criminal commits with that gun. Obviously your safekeeping of the guns wasn't that good, so for your failings at that, you get to accept the punishment along with the criminal. Kind of like the "Latest Mass School Shooting" ™ parents are.

There are no laws that I am aware of that require a gun owner to secure their weapons in safes. Most places don't even require you to lock-up your gun.

bpatus297 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

So maybe enforce strawman purchases? Like the one that led to this school shooting?

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

If If a gun is in a locked house, it is secured. If someone breaks into the house, they're committing a crime.

Ya think? If the criminal is able to A) break into your home B) locate the safe with gun(s) and C) make off with said safe or it's contents than the homeowner should face any penalty that the criminal commits with that gun. Obviously your safekeeping of the guns wasn't that good, so for your failings at that, you get to accept the punishment along with the criminal. Kind of like the "Latest Mass School Shooting" ™ parents are.

So if someone steals your locked car and runs over and kills some pedestrians, you're criminally responsible for that, too?

Explain how buying a gun for your minor son who turns around and uses it on his classmates is the same as someone random person stealing your car?

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

So maybe enforce strawman purchases? Like the one that led to this school shooting?

The school shooting wasn't a straw purchase. Parents can gift guns to children as long as the child doesn't have possession of the weapon until legally allowed. You are allowed to purchase weapons as gifts and they are not straw purchases. The facts, as I have heard them, is the monster took the gun from the parents room. Regardless of if it was locked or not, if it was in the parents room, the shithead didn't technically have possession until he took it, hopefully it was without permission too. Anyway, the poster said he wanted tighter laws, didn't mention anything about enforcement of existing laws.

Alright then, don’t ban the guns. Just ban defensive and offensive use of any lethal weapon by anyone who’s not an official member of the armed forces, or of a law enforcement agency.

That doesn’t infringe on the 2A, does it? If it does, well, it’s called an amendment. You’ve abolished them before.

johns624 wrote:

Okay, and when someone sees a criminal stomping you to death, we'll just walk by and smile. Why would you ban defensive use?

If you feel that’s the right thing to do, you’ve got other issues. Why banning defensive use? Because you won’t let me ban the guns, that’s why.

In any civilised society, the use of deadly force is strictly limited to armed forces and law enforcement. We prefer not to live in some moderne day version of a dystopian wild west.

B777LRF wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Okay, and when someone sees a criminal stomping you to death, we'll just walk by and smile. Why would you ban defensive use?

If you feel that’s the right thing to do, you’ve got other issues. Why banning defensive use? Because you won’t let me ban the guns, that’s why.

In any civilised society, the use of deadly force is strictly limited to armed forces and law enforcement. We prefer not to live in some moderne day version of a dystopian wild west.

While we're talking about ideas that are ridiculous and will never see the light of day, why not just ban criminals from hurting people? Then crime everywhere will cease to exist! After all, that makes about as much sense as telling a woman that she has to be raped and is not allowed to fight off her attacker, which is what you are suggesting.

TriJets wrote:

While we're talking about ideas that are ridiculous and will never see the light of day, why not just ban criminals from hurting people? Then crime everywhere will cease to exist! After all, that makes about as much sense as telling a woman that she has to be raped and is not allowed to fight off her attacker, which is what you are suggesting.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it already a crime to hurt people - registered criminal or not?

As for false equivalencies and straw man arguments, they’re just that. I’m not advocating you cannot defend yourself, merely that you cannot do so using a lethal weapon. Might come as a surprise to you, but that’s the law of the land in all civilised societies. Private citizens are not, under any circumstances, allowed to pass a death sentence unto anyone.

You are certainly welcome and free to defend yourself, but not by using violence in a disproportionate way; killing someone who’s broken into your house to steal your laptop or Playstation is just that. Shooting someone who’s trying to rob you with a knife is just that. Stabbing someone who’s offering a bare knuckles fight is just that. However, punching someone who’s trying to rape you hard in the gonads, is perfectly legal.

B777LRF wrote:

TriJets wrote:

While we're talking about ideas that are ridiculous and will never see the light of day, why not just ban criminals from hurting people? Then crime everywhere will cease to exist! After all, that makes about as much sense as telling a woman that she has to be raped and is not allowed to fight off her attacker, which is what you are suggesting.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it already a crime to hurt people - registered criminal or not?

As for false equivalencies and straw man arguments, they’re just that. I’m not advocating you cannot defend yourself, merely that you cannot do so using a lethal weapon. Might come as a surprise to you, but that’s the law of the land in all civilised societies. Private citizens are not, under any circumstances, allowed to pass a death sentence unto anyone.

You are certainly welcome and free to defend yourself, but not by using violence in a disproportionate way; killing someone who’s broken into your house to steal your laptop or Playstation is just that. Shooting someone who’s trying to rob you with a knife is just that. Stabbing someone who’s offering a bare knuckles fight is just that. However, punching someone who’s trying to rape you hard in the gonads, is perfectly legal.

It is actually not a crime to hurt or even kill someone in self-defense. I'm curious how you think a 90 lb woman is going to be able to fight off a 250 lb man trying to rape or murder her with her bare hands. Thankfully, in civilized societies, citizens have the right to defend themselves against people trying to harm or kill them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it doesn't matter what they are there for; it will likely be their last break-in and the law is 100% OK with that.

TriJets wrote:

It is actually not a crime to hurt or even kill someone in self-defense. I'm curious how you think a 90 lb woman is going to be able to fight off a 250 lb man trying to rape or murder her with her bare hands. Thankfully, in civilized societies, citizens have the right to defend themselves against people trying to harm or kill them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it doesn't matter what they are there for; it will likely be their last break-in and the law is 100% OK with that.

It is a crime when a civilian kills another civilian in any civilised society, almost regardless of the circumstances. If it happens by accident you might get off lightly, but if you inflict death by means of a lethal weapon, that’s murder and you’ll be tried in a court of law as such.

The 90lbs woman has non-lethal options available, such as maze or a well placed kick to the nether regions. Again, you are free to defend yourself but not using a lethal weapon to do so. Would you believe it, there’s zero correlation between the lawful use of lethal weapons as a means of self-defence and rape cases? Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Just a couple of random examples:
Belgium: 27,92
USA*: 27,31
UK: 27,29
Italy: 7,64
Thailand*: 6,71
Denmark: 6,37
*Denotes nations where use of a lethal weapon for self defence is allowed.

If someone breaks into my house, regardless of the time of day, and I kill that someone (whether by gun, knife, blunt weapon or some mean Karate skills), I’ll be put in front of a judge to answer for that crime. What on earth leads you to believe that the punishment for burglary is the death penalty? Or, even more pertinent, what gives you the right to be the judge, jury and executioner?

B777LRF wrote:

TriJets wrote:

It is actually not a crime to hurt or even kill someone in self-defense. I'm curious how you think a 90 lb woman is going to be able to fight off a 250 lb man trying to rape or murder her with her bare hands. Thankfully, in civilized societies, citizens have the right to defend themselves against people trying to harm or kill them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it doesn't matter what they are there for; it will likely be their last break-in and the law is 100% OK with that.

It is a crime when a civilian kills another civilian in any civilised society, almost regardless of the circumstances. If it happens by accident you might get off lightly, but if you inflict death by means of a lethal weapon, that’s murder and you’ll be tried in a court of law as such.

The 90lbs woman has non-lethal options available, such as maze or a well placed kick to the nether regions. Again, you are free to defend yourself but not using a lethal weapon to do so. Would you believe it, there’s zero correlation between the lawful use of lethal weapons as a means of self-defence and rape cases? Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Just a couple of random examples:
Belgium: 27,92
USA*: 27,31
UK: 27,29
Italy: 7,64
Thailand*: 6,71
Denmark: 6,37
*Denotes nations where use of a lethal weapon for self defence is allowed.

If someone breaks into my house, regardless of the time of day, and I kill that someone (whether by gun, knife, blunt weapon or some mean Karate skills), I’ll be put in front of a judge to answer for that crime. What on earth leads you to believe that the punishment for burglary is the death penalty? Or, even more pertinent, what gives you the right to be the judge, jury and executioner?

If someone breaks into my home, I don't know if they are there to kill me, kill someone I care about, or just steal my TV. Thankfully, I don't have to wait to find out. Legally I'm allowed to use lethal force to defend myself. I'm glad I live someplace that puts the rights of victims above the rights of criminals.

B777LRF wrote:

If someone breaks into my house, regardless of the time of day, and I kill that someone (whether by gun, knife, blunt weapon or some mean Karate skills), I’ll be put in front of a judge to answer for that crime. What on earth leads you to believe that the punishment for burglary is the death penalty? Or, even more pertinent, what gives you the right to be the judge, jury and executioner?

That's only if the law considers that reaction a crime. It's not that 'the punishment for burglary is the death penalty'...it's that there is no luxury of time for thought or analysis when someone breaks in and may be threatening you or your family.

B777LRF wrote:

TriJets wrote:

It is actually not a crime to hurt or even kill someone in self-defense. I'm curious how you think a 90 lb woman is going to be able to fight off a 250 lb man trying to rape or murder her with her bare hands. Thankfully, in civilized societies, citizens have the right to defend themselves against people trying to harm or kill them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night it doesn't matter what they are there for; it will likely be their last break-in and the law is 100% OK with that.

It is a crime when a civilian kills another civilian in any civilised society, almost regardless of the circumstances. If it happens by accident you might get off lightly, but if you inflict death by means of a lethal weapon, that’s murder and you’ll be tried in a court of law as such.

The 90lbs woman has non-lethal options available, such as maze or a well placed kick to the nether regions. Again, you are free to defend yourself but not using a lethal weapon to do so. Would you believe it, there’s zero correlation between the lawful use of lethal weapons as a means of self-defence and rape cases? Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Just a couple of random examples:
Belgium: 27,92
USA*: 27,31
UK: 27,29
Italy: 7,64
Thailand*: 6,71
Denmark: 6,37
*Denotes nations where use of a lethal weapon for self defence is allowed.

If someone breaks into my house, regardless of the time of day, and I kill that someone (whether by gun, knife, blunt weapon or some mean Karate skills), I’ll be put in front of a judge to answer for that crime. What on earth leads you to believe that the punishment for burglary is the death penalty? Or, even more pertinent, what gives you the right to be the judge, jury and executioner?

Every action you take has possible consequences. If you break into a home where "castle laws" are in place, you take the risk of getting shot. That is on the person breaking into the home. Its not like the consequence isn't known.

As for your super ninja skills. Self defense isn't as easy as you portray. A kick to the nuts will not, in most cases, stop an attack. Going for the eyes is a much better plan, but alone neither is likely to stop it. What you are saying simply isn't indicative with reality. The real world isn't a movie, TV show, or video game. I would venture a guess that you have not had too many real life fights. When someone is committed to the attack, its really hard to stop them with your supposed mean karate skills.

B777LRF wrote:

Shooting someone who’s trying to rob you with a knife is just that. Stabbing someone who’s offering a bare knuckles fight is just that. However, punching someone who’s trying to rape you hard in the gonads, is perfectly legal.

I am not sure that you are right about that. I agree that in many countries it is illegal to use a disproportional force to defend yourself. It certainly is here, in Canada. But there is no way you can be 100% sure that if someone broke into your house with a knife that he will only rob you. Same with rape. I do not know what exactly the law says, but I will not take your word for this, unless you are a lawyer and familiar with criminal law of all the countries that you are talking about.

Dogman wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Shooting someone who’s trying to rob you with a knife is just that. Stabbing someone who’s offering a bare knuckles fight is just that. However, punching someone who’s trying to rape you hard in the gonads, is perfectly legal.

I am not sure that you are right about that. I agree that in many countries it is illegal to use a disproportional force to defend yourself. It certainly is here, in Canada. But there is no way you can be 100% sure that if someone broke into your house with a knife that he will only rob you. Same with rape. I do not know what exactly the law says, but I will not take your word for this, unless you are a lawyer and familiar with criminal law of all the countries that you are talking about.

In the USA, you would be fine if you shot someone who is robing you with a knife.

TriJets wrote:

If someone breaks into my home, I don't know if they are there to kill me, kill someone I care about, or just steal my TV. Thankfully, I don't have to wait to find out. Legally I'm allowed to use lethal force to defend myself. I'm glad I live someplace that puts the rights of victims above the rights of criminals.

If someone breaks into my house, I know there’s first of all a 98+% probability the house will be empty. Apart from the cat, who’ll be sleeping. The overwhelming majority of burglars are there for one thing, and one thing only: Money or stuff which is easy to carry and easy to sell. They will, at almost any cost, do whatever it takes to avoid being seen or heard, and that means they go after empty houses and apartments.

Now in the very remote chance someone does break in during the night, we’re again back to the reason for their unwelcome visit: Money and stuff to sell. And whilst it does happen on extremely rare occasions, that someone’s there to rape/murder, the chances are so minuscule they are not worthing mentioning. I appreciate that in a less civilised and more violent societies, the risks involved are different; sleeping with a gun under the pillow might be the prudent thing to do in a society rampant with violence, crime, drugs, poverty and destitution. But we’re not talking about living in such a society, are we?

Dogman wrote:

I am not sure that you are right about that. I agree that in many countries it is illegal to use a disproportional force to defend yourself. It certainly is here, in Canada. But there is no way you can be 100% sure that if someone broke into your house with a knife that he will only rob you. Same with rape. I do not know what exactly the law says, but I will not take your word for this, unless you are a lawyer and familiar with criminal law of all the countries that you are talking about.

See above. As for the lawyer bit; most certainly not! I’m an honest person with an intact soul doing an honest job for a living

I do know a little bit about the law around here, and they’re not terribly different from my neighbouring countries and what they say about the use of self-defence. And it basically allows for a “proportionate” response to an attack. Chances of someone (in this neck of the woods) randomly coming at you with a gun are virtually non-existent; getting into a knife-on-knife fight might be a problematic defence, depending on actual circumstances. Clubbing someone to death who comes through your window, and you get into a fight, is murder. Beating him moderately silly with said club, is something you’d probably get away with. Depends how molested you leave the guy. Shoot him and you’re down for murder, looking at 8-12 years.

PS (and not directed at Dogman)
“Castle Laws”. Yeah, let’s go live in medieval times. A really good time were had by all back then.

bpatus297 wrote:

In the USA, you would be fine if you shot someone who is robing you with a knife.

Wouldn’t you agree that, on the whole, running a society where that is considered “fine” might be ripe for a spot of revision? Perhaps finding a way to live together, not in any less disagreement but far less violently?

A society will generally have to be geared to allow for the dumbest, slowest and most idiotic to survive in a humane fashion. That’s why we have to have stuff like insurance, licenses, public services, law and order. It also has a tendency to devolve to the level most commonly seen in a kindergarten playground. Injecting almost freely available firearms into such an equation is not a good idea, no matter how you try to justify it; sometimes little Justin thinks his mom is an insufferable arse, and sending Justin off to kindergarten armed with a gun and grudge is quite simply not a good idea.

The real issue is why that is so hard for some Americans to grasp.

B777LRF wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If someone breaks into my home, I don't know if they are there to kill me, kill someone I care about, or just steal my TV. Thankfully, I don't have to wait to find out. Legally I'm allowed to use lethal force to defend myself. I'm glad I live someplace that puts the rights of victims above the rights of criminals.

If someone breaks into my house, I know there’s first of all a 98+% probability the house will be empty. Apart from the cat, who’ll be sleeping. The overwhelming majority of burglars are there for one thing, and one thing only: Money or stuff which is easy to carry and easy to sell. They will, at almost any cost, do whatever it takes to avoid being seen or heard, and that means they go after empty houses and apartments.

Now in the very remote chance someone does break in during the night, we’re again back to the reason for their unwelcome visit: Money and stuff to sell. And whilst it does happen on extremely rare occasions, that someone’s there to rape/murder, the chances are so minuscule they are not worthing mentioning. I appreciate that in a less civilised and more violent societies, the risks involved are different; sleeping with a gun under the pillow might be the prudent thing to do in a society rampant with violence, crime, drugs, poverty and destitution. But we’re not talking about living in such a society, are we?

You may be willing to take that chance, but I'm not and the law says I don't have to. As I stated earlier on this thread, we had a home intrusion while I was away at work and my wife was home alone. If she hadn't been armed she would have been completely vulnerable.

B777LRF wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

In the USA, you would be fine if you shot someone who is robing you with a knife.

Wouldn’t you agree that, on the whole, running a society where that is considered “fine” might be ripe for a spot of revision? Perhaps finding a way to live together, not in any less disagreement but far less violently?

A society will generally have to be geared to allow for the dumbest, slowest and most idiotic to survive in a humane fashion. That’s why we have to have stuff like insurance, licenses, public services, law and order. It also has a tendency to devolve to the level most commonly seen in a kindergarten playground. Injecting almost freely available firearms into such an equation is not a good idea, no matter how you try to justify it; sometimes little Justin thinks his mom is an insufferable arse, and sending Justin off to kindergarten armed with a gun and grudge is quite simply not a good idea.

The real issue is why that is so hard for some Americans to grasp.

The issue isn't hard to grasp...we value the lives of innocent people over the lives of their attackers. We’re not going to throw someone in prison for the awful "crime" of not allowing a criminal to murder or rape them.

CaptHadley wrote:

Yes, it's just total anarchy/chaos out there right now.

Total anarchy? No. Notably more violent? Yes.

Portland PD just announced they are only responding to violent crimes in progress, and places like Minneapolis are staffed to about 250 of 850 police officers.

Many cities are reporting record murder rates, for example, to include Baltimore. One study noted that there is probably in the time period of the last 12-24 months a spike in homicides that means an extra 2000-6000 homicides over anticipated baseline.

The fact that this isn't being reported doesn't mean there is no data, or it isn't happening. In many cases, homicide rates are reaching 1990s levels so is actually like worse than the 1990s because much of the decrease in homicide had to do with factors like improved trauma surgery outcomes, increased use of body armor by police and other non-immediately intuitive factors.

B777LRF wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Okay, and when someone sees a criminal stomping you to death, we'll just walk by and smile. Why would you ban defensive use?

If you feel that’s the right thing to do, you’ve got other issues. Why banning defensive use? Because you won’t let me ban the guns, that’s why.

In any civilised society, the use of deadly force is strictly limited to armed forces and law enforcement. We prefer not to live in some moderne day version of a dystopian wild west.

Just for my benefit, does that mean that Estonia, Switzerland, Czechia and Poland aren't civilized?

petertenthije wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Strawman purchases are already illegal, what else do you want to?

Serious enforcement of the rules? Give the relevant authorities the tools to do their work. Including a database of who owns/sells what.

That exists in the US. As does a background check at the point of sale.

Multiple databases exist.

One problem is that the ATF tends not to prosecute what is referred to as "straw man" or proxy purchasing.

B777LRF wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

In the USA, you would be fine if you shot someone who is robing you with a knife.

Wouldn’t you agree that, on the whole, running a society where that is considered “fine” might be ripe for a spot of revision? Perhaps finding a way to live together, not in any less disagreement but far less violently?

A society will generally have to be geared to allow for the dumbest, slowest and most idiotic to survive in a humane fashion. That’s why we have to have stuff like insurance, licenses, public services, law and order. It also has a tendency to devolve to the level most commonly seen in a kindergarten playground. Injecting almost freely available firearms into such an equation is not a good idea, no matter how you try to justify it; sometimes little Justin thinks his mom is an insufferable arse, and sending Justin off to kindergarten armed with a gun and grudge is quite simply not a good idea.

The real issue is why that is so hard for some Americans to grasp.

Again, someone who is willing to rob someone at knife point knows the consequences of said action. Getting shot is a risk they take. I was using "fine" as in legally they will not have any repercussions. Personally I don't think anyone willing to rob someone at knife point has any part to play in modern society, so whatever happens to them, based on their decision to partake in the robbery, so be it. Give it a rest with the "almost freely" bullshit. You are obviously 100% against weapons, and you are not a citizen of the US, so this is kind of pointless to have this debate with you.

FlapOperator wrote:

Just for my benefit, does that mean that Estonia, Switzerland, Czechia and Poland aren't civilized?

Insofar as the usage of deadly force is not sanctioned as a legal defence, then for your benefit the answer is a no.

johns624 wrote:

B777LRF--First of all, I find your constant reference to "any civilized society" quite offensive. Second, when someone commits a violent crime against you, the Marquess of Queensberry rules don't apply. Third, look up the concept of "disparity of force". It's a legitimate legal concept. When a criminal commits a violent felony against a law-abiding citizen, the consequences are on him. He initiated the action.

You’re free to take offence, and thanks for letting me know, but I have no control of your feelings.

We don’t disagree in principle, merely on the means one should have legally available to defend oneself. And my proposal is to ban lethal means of self defence, i.e. knives and guns, only because it’s allegedly not possible to ban guns.

johns624 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

johns624 wrote:

B777LRF--First of all, I find your constant reference to "any civilized society" quite offensive. Second, when someone commits a violent crime against you, the Marquess of Queensberry rules don't apply. Third, look up the concept of "disparity of force". It's a legitimate legal concept. When a criminal commits a violent felony against a law-abiding citizen, the consequences are on him. He initiated the action.

You’re free to take offence, and thanks for letting me know, but I have no control of your feelings.

We don’t disagree in principle, merely on the means one should have legally available to defend oneself. And my proposal is to ban lethal means of self defence, i.e. knives and guns, only because it’s allegedly not possible to ban guns.

Why are you so keen on the criminal having (and keeping) the upper hand?

Like we have now? We can't enforce laws already on the books because "legal" gun owning Americans scream about "they are taking our guns!" when, in reality, we want to stop these mass shootings. If all lives matter, firearm enthusiasts would want the same, no? Or are guns simply more important than life itself?