Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

01/09/2013 04:40:45 PM · #426

Originally posted by yanko:

All very reasonable. You support freedom but you have to use common sense. Freedom comes with conditions. You shouldn't expect the rest of society to pay for your lifestyle choices. It's unfortunate that you don't extend that same view to cover the gun lifestyle. Personally, if given a choice, I'd rather pay for my neighbor's lifestyle with my wallet than in flesh and bone, but that's me.

How many times have you been shot? Because I think his point was that ALL of us are paying this bill, and VERY few of us are getting shot.

And besides, the fact that I own guns will absolutely never, ever, ever affect you... I promise. To insinuate that my 'lifestyle' of owning guns is equivalent to her having 15 kids and a "pay me" attitude, boy, that's a bit much really. I'm pretty sure the two are so different that actually pointing out the differences is pointless.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 21:44:29.

01/09/2013 05:03:38 PM · #427

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This also mandates a need for guns to protect your family and property.

It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

So, you're able to tell that the guy who broke into your house in the dead of night is just there for your "stuff" and will leave you and your loved ones alone?

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 22:05:34.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/09/2013 05:08:44 PM · #428

And of course, that idea about armed guards in schools is a terrible idea.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

01/09/2013 05:18:22 PM · #429

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
...This is one thing wrong with the south. This also mandates a need for guns to protect your family and property.

You think this problem's isolated in the "South"? Check out Detroit, Chicago, much of the Northeastern corridor... You have this problem wherever there's extreme poverty.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
In my town, around 90% of break-ins happen on the north-side...somewhere about 85% of the people committing the crimes come from the south-side....

What does that prove? Poor people steal from people that have stuff?

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This also mandates a need for guns to protect your family and property.

It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

Robert I know this prob is not just in the south... I understand that cities in the north experience the same thing. However I do believe in deadly force to protect your family and property. Louisiana is under the castle law. If someone is breaking in or destroying your prop you can legally shoot and kill them. They have also added a clause If you shoot and wound them they can not sue you. Last time I checked...in New York if a crook injures themselves on someones prop they can sue. (That may have changed since last time I looked)

Ya know Robert....I cant say that I would kill someone that I caught breaking into my house or truck but I would at a min shoot him in the leg to keep him there until I could get the cops there. If he was in my house...the person is toast.( at that point he is threatening me and my family)

01/09/2013 05:21:55 PM · #430

Hell... Just remember - (Warning:Graphic) this is undertaken willfully by people. Never underestimate the capabilities of the human to exceed all expectations.

Don't know about you guys, but I do think humans are a rather spooky bunch of bastards in general. Even if it's only one in a million, that still leaves something like 7,000 people. Stopping these types of people will almost always be impossible.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 22:22:51.

01/09/2013 05:24:28 PM · #431

Originally posted by Spork99:

And of course, that idea about armed guards in schools is a terrible idea.

Meh.. That's just a simple suicide by cop.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/09/2013 05:26:23 PM · #432

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

[It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

Bear - you are absolutely correct in posting that it is inappropriate to use deadly force for a property crime. The lawful use of deadly force is very clear. One MUST be under IMMEDIATE threat of death or GRAVE bodily injury. Grave bodily injury is defined as crippling injury. A boot shod foot is consistent with crippling injury when the victim is on the ground being kicked in the head or stomped on. Where the law gets a little murky is when a property crime is in progress and the person being robbed is faced with a deadly weapon or "other disparity of force". Disparity of force could be younger against older, stronger against weaker, many against a few, etc.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 23:29:43.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/09/2013 05:34:07 PM · #433

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

All very reasonable. You support freedom but you have to use common sense. Freedom comes with conditions. You shouldn't expect the rest of society to pay for your lifestyle choices. It's unfortunate that you don't extend that same view to cover the gun lifestyle. Personally, if given a choice, I'd rather pay for my neighbor's lifestyle with my wallet than in flesh and bone, but that's me.

How many times have you been shot? Because I think his point was that ALL of us are paying this bill, and VERY few of us are getting shot.

Shot at? Never. Had a gun raised at me? Yes. I didn't grow up behind a white picket fence. As to you're point, I agree, we all pay for that bill. What you seem to dismiss so easily is the toll we pay for having guns. It's far greater and you don't have to get shot to pay for it either. Just look around you. We live in a world that has been shaped by violence. Stiffer gun control (ie none of this pussyfooting grandfather clauses) is just the tip of the iceberg.

Look, nobody is saying get rid of x guns means a completely safe society, but it's a start. There's a reason why prison guards don't carry guns around the cells. To do so would give prisoners too much of an opportunity to access those guns. However the lack of gun access doesn't stop the prisoners from finding other less effective weapons to use, if they are creative enough. The solution to that isn't to introduce more guns into the environment. Such is the same in society. We allow guns to be too accessible in this country. When a pipe breaks we turn off the water flow. We don't let it run and run until we fix other problems that may have led to the break in the first place. This doesn't me we ban all guns or treat everyone like a criminal but surely we can do more than where doing now.

01/09/2013 05:38:19 PM · #434

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

Bear - you are absolutely correct in posting that it is inappropriate to use deadly force for a property crime. The lawful use of deadly force is very clear. One MUST be under IMMEDIATE threat of deadly force or GRAVE bodily injury. Grave bodily injury is defined as crippling injury. A boot shod foot is consistent with crippling injury when the victim is on the ground being kicked in the head or stomped on. Where the law gets a little murky is when a property crime is in progress and the person being robbed is faced with a deadly weapon or "other disparity of force". Disparity of force could be younger against older, stronger against weaker, many against a few, etc.

By that definition pretty much anyone who isn't trained can shoot me just for being more capable then they are.

Look folks, the first part of this is really the appropriate use of deadly force. If there is no threat of great bodily harm, then don't shoot. A warning is usually favored, and laser sights do help (both to intimidate, and to shoot accurately under pressure)...

But really, just because someone is busy robbing your truck, or stealing your truck, unless your daughter is actually IN the truck, then you have no right to shoot, and I'd think it inadvisable for other reasons at that point.

So, in short - don't shoot people unless you really, actually, have to - it's just not polite or proper. (and it's often quite illegal. remember that even if you're found innocent, the cost will still be astronomical.)

01/09/2013 05:39:46 PM · #435

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

All very reasonable. You support freedom but you have to use common sense. Freedom comes with conditions. You shouldn't expect the rest of society to pay for your lifestyle choices. It's unfortunate that you don't extend that same view to cover the gun lifestyle. Personally, if given a choice, I'd rather pay for my neighbor's lifestyle with my wallet than in flesh and bone, but that's me.

How many times have you been shot? Because I think his point was that ALL of us are paying this bill, and VERY few of us are getting shot.

Shot at? Never. Had a gun raised at me? Yes. I didn't grow up behind a white picket fence. As to you're point, I agree, we all pay for that bill. What you seem to dismiss so easily is the toll we pay for having guns. It's far greater and you don't have to get shot to pay for it either. Just look around you. We live in a world that has been shaped by violence. Stiffer gun control (ie none of this pussyfooting grandfather clauses) is just the tip of the iceberg.

Look, nobody is saying get rid of x guns means a completely safe society, but it's a start. There's a reason why prison guards don't carry guns around the cells. To do so would give prisoners too much of an opportunity to access those guns. However the lack of gun access doesn't stop the prisoners from finding other less effective weapons to use, if they are creative enough. The solution to that isn't to introduce more guns into the environment. Such is the same in society. We allow guns to be too accessible in this country. When a pipe breaks we turn off the water flow. We don't let it run and run until we fix other problems that may have led to the break in the first place. This doesn't me we ban all guns or treat everyone like a criminal but surely we can do more than where doing now.

Good thing you added that, cause, ya know... It sounded kinda exactly like that, didn't it?

01/09/2013 05:41:23 PM · #436

Since this is in /rant, and flight of ideas is totally the chic thing here....

Speaking of the thrill of danger (as noted by myself earlier in this thread...), and in honor of the previous car discussion....

BOY DOES THIS SOB GO!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2013 06:02:42 PM · #437

Back on topic.

Guns might kill people, and the UK and Canada are certainly far more advanced than us as a society in terms of gun death avoidance.

The problem, as I see it, is essentially that the threat of death by a gun does serve to curb crime. Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.

Violent crime per capita - guess what? The US doesn't even make the top ten.

Is this because of guns? I tend to think it very well may be - given that we are actually a society that is disposed to violence, yet violent crime here is actually very low. Explain that to me?

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 23:03:12.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/09/2013 06:12:29 PM · #438

Originally posted by cited article:

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

Interesting that the US ranks so low in violent crime, when we have the highest incarceration rate in the world ... I guess it must all those people in jail for smoking an unapproved substance ...

01/09/2013 06:24:18 PM · #439

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cited article:
But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

Interesting that the US ranks so low in violent crime, when we have the highest incarceration rate in the world ... I guess it must all those people in jail for smoking an unapproved substance ...

Those laws exist for our protection. So, don't you feel safe yet? Don't worry, once everyone is locked up we'll be safe.

01/09/2013 06:34:04 PM · #440

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Ya know Robert....I cant say that I would kill someone that I caught breaking into my house or truck but I would at a min shoot him in the leg to keep him there until I could get the cops there. If he was in my house...the person is toast.( at that point he is threatening me and my family)

I highly recomment you obtain a copy of Massad Ayoob's book In The Gravest Extreme and read it.

01/09/2013 06:41:08 PM · #441

Originally posted by yanko:

Yes, let's make the world MORE like prison. Great idea.

01/09/2013 06:43:35 PM · #442

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

Bear - you are absolutely correct in posting that it is inappropriate to use deadly force for a property crime. The lawful use of deadly force is very clear. One MUST be under IMMEDIATE threat of deadly force or GRAVE bodily injury. Grave bodily injury is defined as crippling injury. A boot shod foot is consistent with crippling injury when the victim is on the ground being kicked in the head or stomped on. Where the law gets a little murky is when a property crime is in progress and the person being robbed is faced with a deadly weapon or "other disparity of force". Disparity of force could be younger against older, stronger against weaker, many against a few, etc.

By that definition pretty much anyone who isn't trained can shoot me just for being more capable then they are.

Cory - your numerous posts on a myriad of topics indicate you are either extremely intelligent, extremely opinionated, or possibly both. The lawful use of force has much case law from which to review and educate oneself. Both by LEO's and civilians. Some cases have withstood appeal and some have been overturned. One thing is certain, ignorance of the law does not excuse one from prosecution for violating it. Therefore it is incumbent on any gun owner to be at a minimum cursorly versed in the basics of use of force case law. One book highly recommended as a primer is Massad Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme. It is a dose of reality for any firearm owner.

01/09/2013 06:49:11 PM · #443

Originally posted by Cory:

guess what? The US doesn't even make the top ten.

Is this because of guns? I tend to think it very well may be - given that we are actually a society that is disposed to violence, yet violent crime here is actually very low.

And since 1992 has fallen to HALF of what it was. During the same time period that CCW (aka CPL) legislation was bing adopted in 38 states. Perhaps just coincidence.

01/09/2013 07:13:21 PM · #444

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[It just blows me away that otherwise rational people can believe that the appropriate response to threats against property is deadly force.

Bear - you are absolutely correct in posting that it is inappropriate to use deadly force for a property crime. The lawful use of deadly force is very clear. One MUST be under IMMEDIATE threat of deadly force or GRAVE bodily injury. Grave bodily injury is defined as crippling injury. A boot shod foot is consistent with crippling injury when the victim is on the ground being kicked in the head or stomped on. Where the law gets a little murky is when a property crime is in progress and the person being robbed is faced with a deadly weapon or "other disparity of force". Disparity of force could be younger against older, stronger against weaker, many against a few, etc.

By that definition pretty much anyone who isn't trained can shoot me just for being more capable then they are.

Cory - your numerous posts on a myriad of topics indicate you are either extremely intelligent, extremely opinionated, or possibly both. The lawful use of force has much case law from which to review and educate oneself. Both by LEO's and civilians. Some cases have withstood appeal and some have been overturned. One thing is certain, ignorance of the law does not excuse one from prosecution for violating it. Therefore it is incumbent on any gun owner to be at a minimum cursorly versed in the basics of use of force case law. One book highly recommended as a primer is Massad Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme. It is a dose of reality for any firearm owner.

And yet, even if you follow that to the letter, if a cop decides to charge you with a crime, the DA determines there is evidence of that crime, and jury believes that you committed the crime, the results will be little different. Heck, even if the jury believes you, you've already paid quite a price. I'm versed enough in the law that I understand plenty of the gray areas, and when they should apply - still, I'm just not a fan of shooting anyone - too much of a stigma, too much chance of being forced to keep some very poor company for a period of years, and being restricted to cuisine that isn't fit for a school's cafeteria.

In the end, shooting is a last resort - pull the trigger only when you're pretty damned sure it's shoot or die. You can move that boundary to be more permissive, but I do not feel that there is any reason to shoot unless you are threatened. Then again, as I've said - a gun really isn't my first weapon of choice, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the simple fact that explaining a claw hammer in someone's skull is much easier than explaining a half-dozen holes in them...

As to my characteristics - I fear that I am unlikely to be the erudite you postulate that I seem to be, as I spend time arguing in /Rant, therefore how smart could I possibly be? As for being opinionated, I'm not too sure. Could be, I suppose I am on some topics, but usually it's when I'm frustrated because things seem so plain to me, and yet other people just seem to perceive things so differently that it drives me mad trying to understand what the heck they're thinking..

Message edited by author 2013-01-10 00:19:32.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/09/2013 07:18:49 PM · #445

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Cory:
guess what? The US doesn't even make the top ten.

Is this because of guns? I tend to think it very well may be - given that we are actually a society that is disposed to violence, yet violent crime here is actually very low.

And since 1992 has fallen to HALF of what it was. During the same time period that CCW (aka CPL) legislation was bing adopted in 38 states. Perhaps just coincidence.

A gun IS my first deterrent of choice for some situations. There's a psychologically magnified threat present when a firearm is the weapon of choice - despite the fact that a few other weapons may be equally, or more, effective in the circumstances.

I am quite convinced the real power of guns is in the psychology of the whole thing, not the physics.

Message edited by author 2013-01-10 00:21:22.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/10/2013 12:49:32 AM · #446

Originally posted by Cory:

The problem, as I see it, is essentially that the threat of death by a gun does serve to curb crime. Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.

In the US about 27% of households own a gun. In Canada about 22% own a gun. Do you think that 5% of gun ownership makes the difference?

Of course Canadians largely own hunting weapons, while Americans like to carry their weapons into bars and the like, so that may be why we have less fighting, and more killing.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

01/10/2013 02:26:18 AM · #447

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yes, let's make the world MORE like prison. Great idea.

and how is living in a war zone any better?

Message edited by author 2013-01-10 07:26:37.

01/10/2013 04:00:50 AM · #448

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Yes, let's make the world MORE like prison. Great idea.

and how is living in a war zone any better?

This place is nothing like a war zone... Even the worst ghettos are pretty nice.

Really, go take a nice little vacation to Syria, then try again once you have perspective and a clue of what you're talking about.

01/10/2013 04:06:15 AM · #449

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
The problem, as I see it, is essentially that the threat of death by a gun does serve to curb crime. Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.

In the US about 27% of households own a gun. In Canada about 22% own a gun. Do you think that 5% of gun ownership makes the difference?

Of course Canadians largely own hunting weapons, while Americans like to carry their weapons into bars and the like, so that may be why we have less fighting, and more killing.

Quite possibly. As I mentioned right before you posted this, its all in the perception and psychology.