Planetarion Forums - It's Illegal To Defend Yourself.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
**thinks of recent gun-control thread**

Questions raised:

- Would the man have had a gun if there was more strict control on guns?
- Would you or the man be dead if you/he didn't have a gun?

I don't want to start this whole discussion again, but I remain sceptical about such a thing. I believe that this random burglar would have had a baseballbat or a knife as a weapon if there'd be more gun control in your country. Less lethal, but he prolly would have succeeded in robbing you, but there probably wouldn't be any dead people now.

Yes, instead of a dead criminal you would have had a situation where a criminal armed with a knife or baseball bat was in a house alone with an unarmed 16 year old. All because you want the criminal to be able to successfully rob the house undisturbed.

18 Mar 2003, 18:23

you are 16 and you have already killed a person.
You have wiped out all of his memories, all of what he ever was and all that he ever could be.
I feel very sorry for you . It must be horrible being in your shoes.
And i dont believe that you would do the same thing agan.
Be honest. if you were in your bed again at the moment that man broke into your house;
would you really grab for the gun again( with all the things you know now) ??

Jammers · 18 Mar 2003, 18:41

if you banned guns and then gave the police powers to actually enforce the law, this wouldn't have happened.
Instead if you try to ban them you just get extreme right wingers whinging about how they can't go and kill small furry animals, and how they don't trust a Government they voted for.

Structural Integrity · 18 Mar 2003, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yes, instead of a dead criminal you would have had a situation where a criminal armed with a knife or baseball bat was in a house alone with an unarmed 16 year old. All because you want the criminal to be able to successfully rob the house undisturbed.

Assuming that because there were no guns in the scenario there wouldn't be a struggle or fight: yes. The life of a man is worth more than posessions, even the life of a burglar.

Ofcourse, this is where the whole discussion is about:

1) WOULD the fight be prevented if there weren't any guns?
2) IS the life of a burglar worth more than a mans posessions?

This has been debatted over and over again on the board.

Lord Talon · 18 Mar 2003, 19:24

cause and effect

some dumb sh*t breaks into someone's home and gets killed = Darwin Award nominee. If you want to be a criminal, where's the logic in crying about the outcome when things go wrong? Responsiblity for your own actions starts with yourself. By engaging in the criminal activity, he effectively forced the situation to come out as it did.

Deffeh · 18 Mar 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Ditto the UK.

i take it this is the guy that shot some unarmed kid twice IN THE BACK ?

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
you are 16 and you have already killed a person.
You have wiped out all of his memories, all of what he ever was and all that he ever could be.
I feel very sorry for you . It must be horrible being in your shoes.
And i dont believe that you would do the same thing agan.
Be honest. if you were in your bed again at the moment that man broke into your house;
would you really grab for the gun again( with all the things you know now) ??

YES BECAUSE IM SURE GETTING KILLED WOULD HAVE BEEN A FAR BETTER IDEA.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Jammers
if you banned guns and then gave the police powers to actually enforce the law, this wouldn't have happened.

YES BECAUSE THE POLICEMAN HIDING BEHIND HIS LIVING ROOM COUCH WOULD HAVE JUMPED OUT AND SAVED HIM FROM THE KNIFE WEILDING BURGLAR

Sub · 18 Mar 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
YES BECAUSE THE POLICEMAN HIDING BEHIND HIS LIVING ROOM COUCH WOULD HAVE JUMPED OUT AND SAVED HIM FROM THE KNIFE WEILDING BURGLAR

No need for sarcasm. Once we have cameras in everyones house, we will be able to stop such attacks straight away. After all, who wouldn't want total protection for the police? Saying that a camera watching your every move is an invasion of privacy is silly - it's just for your protection. If you're not a criminal, what do you have to worry about?

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
No need for sarcasm. Once we have cameras in everyones house, we will be able to stop such attacks straight away. After all, who wouldn't want total protection for the police? Saying that a camera watching your every move is an invasion of privacy is silly - it's just for your protection. If you're not a criminal, what do you have to worry about?

I'm so used to sheer idiocy on here I almost thought you were serious :(((((((((((((((((((((((((

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 19:47

You'll do anything but blame your gun.
If you hadn't had a gun, both of you would be alive now (assuming this actually happened).

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
You'll do anything but blame your gun.
If you hadn't had a gun, both of you would be alive now (assuming this actually happened).

You can't say this.

It's stupid arguments like this that serve to justify the progun lobby.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You can't say this.

It's stupid arguments like this that serve to justify the progun lobby.

Although I cannot claim to be able to predict people's actions any more than you can, I find it more likely that the two would both be alive now had he not owned a gun. The intruder would not have felt as threatened, and additionally, without a gun the resident would have been less likely to have made a stand and more likely to simply run, thereby losing many of his possessions. This would be a preferable outcome to the loss of a life in my opinion, with which you may disagree.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Although I cannot claim to be able to predict people's actions any more than you can, I find it more likely that the two would both be alive now had he not owned a gun. The intruder would not have felt as threatened, and additionally, without a gun the resident would have been less likely to have made a stand and more likely to simply run, thereby losing many of his possessions. This would be a preferable outcome to the loss of a life in my opinion, with which you may disagree.

You can't make that assumption.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You can't make that assumption.

And neither can you make the assumption that the resident would have been killed.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
This would be a preferable outcome to the loss of a life in my opinion, with which you may disagree.

Yes I do disagree, youre wrong.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 20:00

We kind of need statistics here to determine which sequence of events actually does happen more often, thus enabling us to make a rational and well-founded conclusion.

However for comedy purposes I propose we each back a penguin in an ice throwing contest, whichever penguin gets knocked unconscious first his backer loses the argument.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
And neither can you make the assumption that the resident would have been killed.

Current info: The resident would have been killed.
Effect of the lack of a gun: Unknown
Therefore base hypothesis: The resident would have been killed.

Simple enough I think.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yes I do disagree

fine.

Quote:

youre wrong.

in your opinion.

Dante Hicks · 18 Mar 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
- Would the man have had a gun if there was more strict control on guns?

Would the man have broken into his house if there was a law against it?

Oh, he already did. I think we can take the wild assumption that this person was a criminal. As such, I don't think banning the legal ownership of firearms would have stopped his desire to have a gun.

Unless you know of some magic way of destroying the VAST numbers of guns already in existence in the United States (i.e. forcing criminals to hand over guns they already have), I don't see what difference outlawing guns would have - apart from to push up the black market cost of owning guns (which might possibly might make them harder to obtain, or could simply increase crime similar to drugs prices).

Also, even if you outlawed general guns (i.e. like the UK) shotguns would be legal since it's considered legitimate use for farmers, etc.

p.s. Guns don't cause crimes. They may facilitate them, but they sure don't cause them. The United States crime problem stems from a number of problems, but prevalence of guns has little to do with it. Otherwise Switzerland would be a hell-hole (well, more so).

p.p.s. Stop saying things like "Your property isn't more important than a human life". That isn't the debate. This is about an issue of someone breaking into your home and the possibility of them killing you. I don't value any material posession in my home (lo contents insurance and subsequent scam) but if I was faced with similar situation, I'd try the same.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
fine.
in your opinion. [/b]

Im not asking people to sacrifice their lives and earnings for my opinion, you are.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Current info: The resident would have been killed.

and you know this... how?

at least 'nod' doesn't base his disagreement on uncertain premises.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
in your opinion.

Why do you feel the need to make this kind of comment?

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
and you know this... how?

at least 'nod' doesn't base his disagreement on uncertain premises.

The other person was armed with a shotgun and was pointing it at him.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
and you know this... how?

at least 'nod' doesn't base his disagreement on uncertain premises.

From the tale we were told at the beginning, it seems resonably likely, don't you think?

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why do you feel the need to make this kind of comment?

Because its easier to cop out and pretend that everything is a matter of opinion than to admit that you are wrong.

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Current info: The resident would have been killed.
Effect of the lack of a gun: Unknown
Therefore base hypothesis: The resident would have been killed.

Current info: The burglar was looking for some easy cash, not a resident to murder.
Effect of the lack of a gun: The burglar would not have fealt threatened by a confrontation, and would not have needed to shoot. In addition, the lack of a gun would have likely forced the resident to avoid the confrontation altogether.
Therefore base hypothesis: No one would have been killed.

Not too hard.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
fine.
in your opinion.

If his opinion was that the earth was composed of small green leprechauns who drink and swear heavily you can say he's wrong. If he's of the opinion that 2+2=4 he's right.

CALLING IT AN OPINION DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN BE EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG. YOU'RE JUST CALLING IT SOMETHING IT ISN't.

I apologise profusely for yelling, but unfortunately nobody ever seems to understand that vital point.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Im not asking people to sacrifice their lives and earnings for my opinion, you are.

so we should 'remove' everyone with mental characteristics even slightly conducive to committing crimes from society to prevent this from occurring?

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
From the tale we were told at the beginning, it seems resonably likely, don't you think?

no

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Current info: The burglar was looking for some easy cash, not a resident to murder.
Effect of the lack of a gun: The burglar would not have fealt threatened by a confrontation, and would not have needed to shoot. In addition, the lack of a gun would have likely forced the resident to avoid the confrontation altogether.
Therefore base hypothesis: No one would have been killed.

Not too hard.

You're making the same assumption that NH did.

What do you base your evidence for 'No gun => no chance of death' on?

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Current info: The burglar was looking for some easy cash, not a resident to murder.
Effect of the lack of a gun: The burglar would not have fealt threatened by a confrontation, and would not have needed to shoot. In addition, the lack of a gun would have likely forced the resident to avoid the confrontation altogether.
Therefore base hypothesis: No one would have been killed.

Not too hard.

People who get in the way of burglars while they are carrying out their noble and lawabiding careers are evil and deserve everything they get.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
no

Once again, to quote noddykins, 'You're wrong'.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
so we should 'remove' everyone with mental characteristics even slightly conducive to committing crimes from society to prevent this from occurring?

what

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
The other person was armed with a shotgun and was pointing it at him.

The other person was armed with a shotgun, and saw someone coming at him with a gun in his hand, aiming at him. His split-second reaction was to attempt killing his attacker before getting killed, an accurate estimation as he was in fact, killed by his attacker.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
If his opinion was that the earth was composed of small green leprechauns who drink and swear heavily you can say he's wrong. If he's of the opinion that 2+2=4 he's right.

CALLING IT AN OPINION DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN BE EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG. YOU'RE JUST CALLING IT SOMETHING IT ISN't.

I apologise profusely for yelling, but unfortunately nobody ever seems to understand that vital point.

fair enough jonny, you're right as usual, but we cannot know for certain that the earth is not composed of small green leprechauns who drink and swear heavily. His statement was not equally as certain as a mathematical truth. see?

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
The other person was armed with a shotgun, and saw someone coming at him with a gun in his hand, aiming at him. His split-second reaction was to attempt killing his attacker before getting killed, an accurate estimation as he was in fact, killed by his attacker.

The burglar was just carrying the shotgun to scare him, it probably wasnt even a real shotgun just a water pistol or something. The fact he came out to confront the intruder in his house rather than hiding under his bed was a stupid and immoral thing to do and justice would have been served if the burglar had shot Qazok for scaring him. After all, being disturbing can result in panic and stress from the shock, and Qazok had no right jepordizing the burglars health in thsi manner.

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
What do you base your evidence for 'No gun => no chance of death' on?

On the same grounds on which you base your 'Gun = certain death' theory.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
fair enough jonny, you're right as usual, but we cannot know for certain that the earth is not composed of small green leprechauns who drink and swear heavily. His statement was not equally as certain as a mathematical truth. see?

We don't know for certain that it isn't.

All we have is empirical evidence that suggets that the less unnecessarily complicated inference we can gather is that it is not.

Don't get mathematics involved in this, it's a form of formal logic and has no direct physical existance.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
On the same grounds on which you base your 'Gun = certain death' theory.

I stated quite clearly that in a case of insufficient evidence there is no grounds to change your hypothesis.

Do you not read or understand what I say?

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
The burglar was just carrying the shotgun to scare him

More likely he was carrying it to defend himself from teenagers with guns.

Of course there is no justification for burglary, but I would put the death of a person as the bigger tragedy than the loss of a hifi-stereoset.

Quote:

The fact he came out to confront the intruder in his house rather than hiding under his bed was a stupid and immoral thing to do and it justice would have been served if the burglar had shot Qazok for scaring him.

So it's justice when a 16-year old person needs to kill someone because of breaking and entering?

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I stated quite clearly that in a case of insufficient evidence there is no grounds to change your hypothesis.

I've never changed my hypothesis, as it has been from the start that one person having a gun does not automatically lead to someone getting killed.

Otherwise armed robbery wouldn't exist, as it would always be manslaughter or murder.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
So it's justice when a 16-year old person needs to kill someone because of breaking and entering?

Knowingly breaking the laws of the state doesn't put the burglar in a very good moral position for this kind of argument.

Structural Integrity · 18 Mar 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Would the man have broken into his house if there was a law against it?

Oh, he already did. I think we can take the wild assumption that this person was a criminal. As such, I don't think banning the legal ownership of firearms would have stopped his desire to have a gun.

Unless you know of some magic way of destroying the VAST numbers of guns already in existence in the United States (i.e. forcing criminals to hand over guns they already have), I don't see what difference outlawing guns would have - apart from to push up the black market cost of owning guns (which might possibly might make them harder to obtain, or could simply increase crime similar to drugs prices).

Also, even if you outlawed general guns (i.e. like the UK) shotguns would be legal since it's considered legitimate use for farmers, etc.

p.s. Guns don't cause crimes. They may facilitate them, but they sure don't cause them. The United States crime problem stems from a number of problems, but prevalence of guns has little to do with it. Otherwise Switzerland would be a hell-hole (well, more so).

p.p.s. Stop saying things like "Your property isn't more important than a human life". That isn't the debate. This is about an issue of someone breaking into your home and the possibility of them killing you. I don't value any material posession in my home (lo contents insurance and subsequent scam) but if I was faced with similar situation, I'd try the same.

OK

He was a criminal, no doubt about that, and even if he wouldn't have had a gun he prolly would have broken in.

Also, proven fact is that countries with no gun-control don't nescesarilly have to have higher (or lower) crime rates. I agree with you on that point.

One little thing I'd like to add is that most guns used in crimes, are either stolen, or brought into the country by smugglers. If you can limit the amount of guns on the streets (or in relatively easilly accessible houses), you can reduce the amount of guns held by criminals because:
1) less guns would be available
2) prices of guns would rise and wouldn't be of any interrest for the smaller criminal (although I've read that illegal, used guns can be obtained in the Netherlands for 250 euros, which is very cheap IMO)

I agree with your "ps", as I said is the crimerate in a country with lax gun-control not nescesarilly higher or lower than in a country with gun control.

I agree half with your "pps". There IS a possibility of someone breaking in your house to kill you, ofcourse, but the original post was about a simple burglar. And in most "break-ins" the burglar is out for money, not to kill the people in the house.
In my eyes there wouldn't be a dead person now if there'd been gun control. The burlar was prolly a "small criminal", so he prolly wouldn't have had a gun, and the 16yr old kid wouldn't have had a gun to shoot the burglar with. He probably would have fled the house, instead of taking on the burglar.
Ofcourse, this is all hypothetical, but this is what I believe would have happened if there was gun control.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
I've never changed my hypothesis, as it has been from the start that one person having a gun does not automatically lead to someone getting killed.

That quite obviously isn't the hypothesis I was talking about.

Either make some kind of connection between my posts or stop trolling.

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Knowingly breaking the laws of the state doesn't put the burglar in a very good moral position for this kind of argument.

So anyone breaking the law should be shot by kids?

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
We don't know for certain that it isn't.

All we have is empirical evidence that suggets that the less unnecessarily complicated inference we can gather is that it is not.

Don't get mathematics involved in this, it's a form of formal logic and has no direct physical existance.

My mention of mathematics was merely as a response to Jonny's, if you actually read his post.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
So anyone breaking the law should be shot by kids?

Where are you inferring all of this from?

I'm quite mystified.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy

Of course there is no justification for burglary, but I would put the death of a person as the bigger tragedy than the loss of a hifi-stereoset.

Thats because it isnt your hifistereo. When someone steals something that you have worked to be able to possess, they have essentially stolen those hours from your life. Saying "omg its only a TV fuk u human life is more valuable than anything in the universe YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON IT YOU CANT!" is just dumb.

Anyway, I take it from this post youd be prepared to sacrifice most of your physical possessions just to save the life of someone you didnt know? Because like, the loss of his life is more of a tragedy than the loss of your things man.

Nodrog · 18 Mar 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Where are you inferring all of this from?

I'm quite mystified.

There is no pragmatic difference whatsoever between retroactive force and self-defence; if Qazok had locked him in his basement for 6 months like a court would do, he would have done the right thing.