On personal liberties

[shanek]

On the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion (I know a bit more about them because they were active in Germany) had some really smart and reasonable people among them; Ulrike Meinhof was reputed to be one of the most brilliant journalists of post-war Germany.
Before they became terrorists, these people were not much different from some people here in this forum. They believed that the ballot box was useless because the politicians were all unrepentant former Nazis - which, to a certain degree, they were. They´d committed arson at a department store in Frankfurt (not sure about the location) and got indicted for that, so they thought the jury box was also in the hands of the "Nazi" state - so they became terrorists.

Well, I don't know about their particular situation so I can't comment on them, but often terrorism is used in much of the same way Ben Franklin said about treason: that it was "a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

 

[EvilYeti]

This is all from that bogus, long-refuted Kellerman "data." And you accuse others of spouting out junk science!

That stat is right from the FBI, not Kellerman, anyone can look it up.

Unless you are claiming otherwise?

Why don't you educate us and tell us what percentage of annual gun homicides are justifiable? Be sure to name your sources, I'm curious if you are going to use an astrologer again.

 

[Tony]

Well, I don't know about their particular situation so I can't comment on them, but often terrorism is used in much of the same way Ben Franklin said about treason: that it was "a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

I'd also ad "war criminal" as a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers.

 

[gnome]

I'd also ad "war criminal" as a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers.

That's a cynical comment on who might be accused of war crimes, and relevant enough...

But I maintain that there can be reasonable standards that distinguish a war criminal, that have nothing to do with whether they won or lost.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That's a cynical comment on who might be accused of war crimes, and relevant enough...

But I maintain that there can be reasonable standards that distinguish a war criminal, that have nothing to do with whether they won or lost.

True enough but if the war criminals are on the winning side, it is highly unlikely that they will ever see trial.

 

[Suddenly]

Why is that at all a likely result? Present data, please.

Present data that an 80 year old woman is unlikely to be able to protect herself from a rapist regardless of her weaponry? Maybe you should yourself produce data that a gun would be of any use in that situation as you are the one that asked

Ah, yes, that's the answer. 80 year old women should defend themselves with their two bare hands; they don't need guns at all.

You gave no data for the implied conclusion that they would be safer with a gun. Do you really believe it is even feasable that an 80 year old person could identify a threat, get the gun, and shoot an assailant before that person was overpowered? The only way that is even remotely possible is if the assailant has no idea that the woman is armed, and that assumption would be unfounded were guns more widely carried.

Maybe she gets confused and plugs a boyscout offering to help her cross the street. Then there are hand/eye coordination and stray bullet issues. Trained officers sometimes shoot unarmed and innocent people by mistake, how's an armed 80 year old with minimal or no training going to do?

Again, this is fine, but what possible justification is there for forcing this choice on others?

Nothing except that you did question the wisdom of those that would rather suffer violence than use a gun. Life isn't that simple. If I knew for certain someone was out to kill or rape me, I'd shoot them. It's just that from what I've seen the instances where having a gun makes you more likely to get shot outnumber those where having a gun helps. Thus, I'm safer in a number of ways, and one of them is the fact I am certain I will never shoot an innocent person, wrongfully believing he/she is attacking me.

I'm all for gun ownership as a right. I just think absent deer hunting and having it just in case the British invade again there isn't a good reason for it.

 

[shanek]

True enough but if the war criminals are on the winning side, it is highly unlikely that they will ever see trial.

How about Cally? He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, only to be released by Nixon after three years.

 

[Cleopatra]

You're pretty sick.

Nope. When you take a decision you have to take your risks, it's not a matter of stupidity or heroism.

I am not a hero, I am scarred to death of rapists or murderers but I choose not to take a gun.

Those that take the decision to own a gun take a risk too;they risk to see their child killed for example.

Life is about choices dear Tony

Shanek

1. First if somebody rescued me by using a gun I'd be grateful but I'd be terribly sorry for his becoming a murderer for my sake.

2. Chaos brought you some pretty good examples why the catridge box isn't the best resort.

You keep mentioning the Founding Fathers.

Well, the Founding Fathers haven't elected the British to whom they opposed. If you take your gun to oppose to the Patriot Act you'd oppose to an elected government and you 'd be nothing but a terrorist.

Terrorism is not the last resort if the ballot and the jury box fail.

Let me put it in a different way:

You might achieve freedom with the catridge box but it's the ballot box that you need to defend it.

 

[Tony]

Nope. When you take a decision you have to take your risks, it's not a matter of stupidity or heroism.

I am not a hero, I am scarred to death of rapists or murderers but I choose not to take a gun.

Those that take the decision to own a gun take a risk too;they risk to see their child killed for example.

Life is about choices dear Tony

I guess I can respect that, but personally, i'd rather not live in fear.

1. First if somebody rescued me by using a gun I'd be grateful but I'd be terribly sorry for his becoming a murderer for my sake.

Except that he/she wouldnt be a murderer. Killing in self defense or the defense of others is not murder.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

 

[Ian Osborne]

How about Cally? He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, only to be released by Nixon after three years.

Lt William Calley? There's a great site about the Mai Lai massacre here.

Also, Reagan and North got away scott-free after Contra-gate. If a Nicaraguan who lost family to the Contras killed one or both of them, would anyone blame him? I certainly wouldn't...

 

[shanek]

Present data that an 80 year old woman is unlikely to be able to protect herself from a rapist regardless of her weaponry?

I submit that she is more likely to be able to do so with a gun, a claim that should be self-evidence to any but the most biased thinkers.

Anyway...according to The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, May 8, 2000, a 65-year-old mail delivery man was accosted by an armed criminal and he successfully defended himself with his gun.

According to WBRE-TV in Wilks-Barre, PA, April 27, 2000, an elderly couple ran off two intruders who had broken into their home.

According to the San Francisco Examine on February 22, 2000, an 83-year-old widower shot an intruder armed with a tire iron, the only time he had fired his weapon on another person in 30 years of gun ownership.

A similar instance with an intruder armed with a knife was reported by the Chicago Tribune on March 2, 2000.

Another such instance was reported by The Tampa Tribune, on November 11, 1999, where a 74-year-old man scared off an intruder by firing warning shots.

There's a Washington Times story about two elderly grandmothers who used their guns to repel an attack by four men. There was a local incident I read in the police blotter where an elderly woman shot an armed assailant. On and on and on.

Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

And all you have are unsibstantiated fears with nothing at all to back them up; wild stories of grannies getting assailants confused with Boy Scouts. Give me a break!

 

[Cleopatra]

Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Also, dictionaries are about uses of words and not definitions, we have said this many times.

 

[Tony]

Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

It would be in defense of another though. It would not be murder.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Huh? No I dont. There is a big difference between being afraid and being prepared

 

[shanek]

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

I know in NC defending others is included as "self-defense." My understanding is that some other states have a separate "defense of others" plea but it's treated the same way as self-defense.

Either way, it's the same concept.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

I'm sure it does, but how you feel about widespread gun ownershp if an armed Tony moved in next door to you, and an armed Bigfig moved into the house on the other side of yours?

 

[Cleopatra]

Huh? No I dont. There is a big difference between being afraid and being prepared

Ok, at least we got over the argument that you need the guns to protect your personal liberties from the politicians they'd attempt to abuse them...

 

[Tony]

Ok, at least we got over the argument that you need the guns to protect your personal liberties from the politicians they'd attempt to abuse them...

I dont think I ever made that argument.

 

[Suddenly]

I submit that she is more likely to be able to do so with a gun, a claim that should be self-evidence to any but the most biased thinkers.

Of course, that really isn't the issue. Maybe there is a tiny chance of self-defense because of the gun, depending on the circumstance. I thought we were talking about an elderly woman attacked by a rapist. I have been working on the assumption of a street crime type attack. This would be much different than an attack on a home, for obvious reasons. Either way, and particularly in the former situation, the gun also brings into play many other tragic results, all of which I say are much more likely. All I have to back that up is my experience in the criminal justice system. Guns do frighten burgulars and others, but that isn't always a good thing, especially if the burgular is carrying a gun as well.

Anyway...according to The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, May 8, 2000, a 65-year-old mail delivery man was accosted by an armed criminal and he successfully defended himself with his gun.

According to WBRE-TV in Wilks-Barre, PA, April 27, 2000, an elderly couple ran off two intruders who had broken into their home.

According to the San Francisco Examine on February 22, 2000, an 83-year-old widower shot an intruder armed with a tire iron, the only time he had fired his weapon on another person in 30 years of gun ownership.

A similar instance with an intruder armed with a knife was reported by the Chicago Tribune on March 2, 2000.

Another such instance was reported by The Tampa Tribune, on November 11, 1999, where a 74-year-old man scared off an intruder by firing warning shots.

There's a Washington Times story about two elderly grandmothers who used their guns to repel an attack by four men. There was a local incident I read in the police blotter where an elderly woman shot an armed assailant. On and on and on.

Deny it all you want, but it does happen.

And all you have are unsibstantiated fears with nothing at all to back them up; wild stories of grannies getting assailants confused with Boy Scouts. Give me a break!

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence." Counting positives doesn't really mean anything without a number of occurrences and number of negative outcomes to compare it to, such as instances where guns stolen from homes or from persons end up used in a later crime, or where the presence of the gun turns what would have been a property crime into an assault or murder.

 

[Suddenly]

Tony

The man wouldn't be in self-defense, I think that many State Laws recognize the defence of a third person when it's a minor, I hope that Suddenly reads this and correct me.

But Tony, you carry a gun because you are afraid more than me.

Also, dictionaries are about uses of words and not definitions, we have said this many times.

Depends on the state, but it is pretty universal that it must be "reasonable" force. In most circumstances the shooter will be OK as long as some attempt to stop the rapist via a threat was made before shots were fired, and as long as those shots were not particularly designed to kill.

If he snuck up behind the guy and blew his head off with no warning, there could be a problem. If he warned, and then shot him in the leg and he bled to death, or if was reasonable that a head shot without warning was necessary (rapist had a gun) there wouldn't be a problem.

It all comes down to what is reasonable force.

 

[shanek]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."[/B]

But I only need one example to rebut the assertion that guns are useless as self-defense to an elderly person.