• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

...Shall Not Be Infringed

Trausti said:
Which, of course, is a bit more frightening if a criminal is intent on breaking in regardless of your locked door. They probably don't have your best interests in mind.
Click to expand...
Yes. It means that they have a specific thing that is unique to you, directly, that they want.
 
Hercules56 said:
So you're against the people having the right to defend themselves against criminals?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

I think there's a balance to be struck, between the obvious good of people having the right to stand up for themselves rather than being expected to meekly turn the other cheek, and the corrosive social effect of making people feel they need to have the means to kill people handy because so many other people seem to have it too and everyone's afraid of real or possibly exaggerated threats from other people.

My opinion, for whatever you might think that's worth, is that the US has both the benefits of a culture which strongly values self-reliance and the downside of the same: greater fear and distrust and wider possession of the means to easily kill each other. While you might feel less stressed if you have the means to take care of yourself, people seem to be happier (looking at you, Scandinavia) in cultures where people have a higher expectation of everyone taking care of each other.
 
Darat said:
We've a thread about "the rule of so".

Jack by the hedge has not made any such argument.
Click to expand...
My bad.

What he is saying is, he does not support the right of the people to defend themselves and others with force?

Ok, good to hear he does not. Self-defense with force including deadly force is a natural human right if appropriate based on the immediate threat.
 
Last edited:
Self defence using reasonable force is okay by me, and it's lawful here, as I expect it is just about everywhere. So that doesn't appear to be a difference that sets the US apart.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Self defence using reasonable force is okay by me, and it's lawful here, as I expect it is just about everywhere. So that doesn't appear to be a difference that sets the US apart.
Click to expand...
In many nations it is not considered reasonable to shoot someone just because they threaten you with a weapon.
 
Hercules56 said:
In many nations it is not considered reasonable to shoot someone just because they threaten you with a weapon.
Click to expand...
In the UK, you are allowed to use reasonable force. If you do have a gun and you shoot an assailant with it, you would probably be ok. The law recognises that, in the heat of the moment, you might not have time to weigh up the options and choose a less lethal weapon.

On the other hand, if the assailant sees your gun and thinks better of attacking you and starts to run away, it would not be considered reasonable force to shoot them in the back. You will be in a lot of trouble.

Note that it is highly unlikely that the assailant would be in possession of a firearm themselves.
 
jeremyp said:
In the UK, you are allowed to use reasonable force. If you do have a gun and you shoot an assailant with it, you would probably be ok. The law recognises that, in the heat of the moment, you might not have time to weigh up the options and choose a less lethal weapon.

On the other hand, if the assailant sees your gun and thinks better of attacking you and starts to run away, it would not be considered reasonable force to shoot them in the back. You will be in a lot of trouble.

Note that it is highly unlikely that the assailant would be in possession of a firearm themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree deadly force should not be legal to stop fleeing intruder. But what if he has a weapon and is fleeing with it? That is clearly a deadly danger to anyone who may be outside. Cops can shoot an armed fleeing suspect, there is an argument to be made that the public should be able to as well.

Shoot a fleeing unarmed suspect? Not even police are allowed to shoot them.
 
Hercules56 said:

Canadian man charged with murder for stabbing armed intruder.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And?

Maybe you forgot what you said: you said in many nations it would not be considered reasonable to shoot someone who attacked you with a weapon. The Canadian in your story didn't shoot anyone, nor was his defending himself with a knife considered unreasonable. The charge has to do with him continuing to stab the mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ long after he was no longer a threat. The Canadian is charged for the suspected disproportionate retaliation till the facts are sorted at trial.

Did you mean to link a different story, or did you not understand the one you linked?
 
Hercules56 said:

Canadian man charged with murder for stabbing armed intruder.
Click to expand...
Not murder. The intruder isn't dead.

This looks like a case where the question isn't can you defend yourself it's about what's reasonable. Guy breaks in with a crossbow and you have a knife. Nowhere are they going to say you can't defend yourself with the knife. Unless we know more details we won't know why they charged the guy.

I gather that such rules on what you can reasonably do vary a lot state by state in the US so it's not clear this case can tell us anything useful about stuff one country gets right and another gets wrong.

Seems like a curious case too, that wasn't just some random burglary. Acquaintances say the men knew each other and the intruder lived nearby.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Not murder. The intruder isn't dead.

This looks like a case where the question isn't can you defend yourself it's about what's reasonable. Guy breaks in with a crossbow and you have a knife. Nowhere are they going to say you can't defend yourself with the knife. Unless we know more details we won't know why they charged the guy.

I gather that such rules on what you can reasonably do vary a lot state by state in the US so it's not clear this case can tell us anything useful about stuff one country gets right and another gets wrong.

Seems like a curious case too, that wasn't just some random burglary. Acquaintances say the men knew each other and the intruder lived nearby.
Click to expand...
Do accused people in Canada have the presumption of innocence?
 
This will go nowhere as it is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Primarily pandering and trolling, things Trump excels at. Not dissimilar to Trumps Flag Burning EOR. We are going to punish flag burners, if they are committing some other crime while they are burning the flag.

Other thoughts:
Almost everybody agrees that self-defense with appropriate force is fine. The debate is mostly about what appropriate force means.

We have been having a low-key discussion of gun rights for the mentally ill (treated and untreated). Mostly it's under the rubric of red flag laws. Probably among the most effective ways to reduced gun violence but possibly unconstitutional and often completely unenforced. There have been a couple of mass shooters that were covered by red flag restrictions in their jurisdictions, but nobody tried. And then there's domestic violence. One of the most common types of murder in the US and a restraining order is one of the clearest predictors of murder. This sort of law might get past the current SCOTUS on account of there being some historical traditions of restricting the gun rights for dangerous individuals.

Pet peeves about the conversation around guns in the US. 20-40k gun deaths in the US. Most, around 60% are suicide. The rest are a combination of domestic murders and gang murders. A small fraction is a gunman shooting a lot of people in a public place*.

*Unless you include gang violence.

The most common type of gun used to kill people are hand-guns. We should start by controlling those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom