• 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

Thermal said:
A knife, you have a fighting chance against, If you have something longer like a baseball bat, or even a frying pan. Just something to strike the hand with without engaging it with flesh.

A handgun, I loosely consider kind of a military weapon, just reappropriated for civilian murdering.
Click to expand...
That's very odd. Handgun has never been standard issue for regular soldiers.

If you attack me or someone else with a knife, I have the natural right to stop you with deadly force, due the nature of the threat you pose.

Gun, knife, sword, sledge hammer, whatever.
 
Hercules56 said:
If you attack me or someone else with a knife, I have the natural right to stop you with deadly force, due the nature of the threat you pose.

Gun, knife, sword, sledge hammer, whatever.
Click to expand...
Imagine someone breaks in and threatens with a knife. You can't use your gun because the intruder doesn't have one. So to protect yourself and family you have to run quick to the kitchen and find a same-sized knife to dual to the death. That's some stupid $$$$.
 
Hercules56 said:
That's very odd. Handgun has never been standard issue for regular soldiers.
Click to expand...
Didn't say it was. It's a short range people killer, designed for those who want to kill people at short range, serving no other purpose that a rifle wouldn't do much better.
Hercules56 said:
If you attack me or someone else with a knife, I have the natural right to stop you with deadly force, due the nature of the threat you pose.
Click to expand...
Take a gander at nature sometime. You have no rights in nature. Rights are given by people to others.
Hercules56 said:
Gun, knife, sword, sledge hammer, whatever.
Click to expand...
You might have the right to kill if given an excuse, even most if the time. I'll exercise my right to not kill unless there is no other option.
 
Thermal said:
Didn't say it was. It's a short range people killer, designed for those who want to kill people at short range, serving no other purpose that a rifle wouldn't do much better.

Take a gander at nature sometime. You have no rights in nature. Rights are given by people to others.

You might have the right to kill if given an excuse, even most if the time. I'll exercise my right to not kill unless there is no other option.
Click to expand...
Something tells me if someone broke into your home and threatened a loved one with a knife, you would not hesitate to use deadly force against them.
 
Hercules56 said:
Something tells me if someone broke into your home and threatened a loved one with a knife, you would not hesitate to use deadly force against them.
Click to expand...
Not sure what that has to do with what we were discussing?

The problem with talking about self defense is that it is always situation specific when such high stakes are at play. There is no 'one size fits all' response. What I would do if I was personally threatened would be very different than if someone else was threatened (whether they were one of my personal loved ones or not). Credibility and imminence of the threat will factor in. How close they are to the person and how close I am to both factor as well.

But to try to answer with a blanket statement: no, I would hesitate to use deadly force as long as was possible before grievous harm was imminent, as the definition goes. You said earlier you would hold a gun on someone if you found them in your house. I would not. That's why there is no needless blood on my hands right now, I wouldn't ever point a gun at someone that I was not about to shoot, nor would I point it at someone unarmed and non-violent.
 
Hercules56 said:
Something tells me if someone broke into your home and threatened a loved one with a knife, you would not hesitate to use deadly force against them.
Click to expand...
While I have long expressed distaste for "what-if" hypothetical games and generally refuse to engage with them, I will say that I would do everything in my power to use non-lethal force to apprehend them and turn them over to legal authorities for fair trial as is the right of every human being under Articles 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Lethal force is at best a last possible resort when there is absolutely no other option. Using a gun for lethal self-defence completely undermines this principle. It bypasses even the slightest question over whether lethal force is even necessary.

You see someone who is apparently threatening a loved one with a knife, and you have a gun that you profess to own for "self-defence", so you shoot and kill them. It matters not whether they actually intended harm. It matters not whether there is any mitigating circumstance. It matters not whether they have loved ones who might be grieved at their death. It matters not whether the knife is even real and you haven't misinterpreted the situation. You have taken the matter into your own hands and in the spur of the moment you have unilaterally decided that this person deserves to die. In a fraction of a second you have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. In a fraction of a second you have issued judgement, and in a fraction of a second you have dealt out the most irrevocable of punishments.

Can you even live with yourself after doing that?

Regardless, the use of lethal force in self-defence is legal and common in the United States, in a way that is practically unheard-of in other developed countries. This utter disdain for human life and dignity that is enshrined in US law is well-known, and it applies to everybody in the country.

No wonder the place is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.
 
arthwollipot said:
Lethal force is at best a last possible resort when there is absolutely no other option. Using a gun for lethal self-defence completely undermines this principle. It bypasses even the slightest question over whether lethal force is even necessary.

You see someone who is apparently threatening a loved one with a knife, and you have a gun that you profess to own for "self-defence", so you shoot and kill them. It matters not whether they actually intended harm. It matters not whether there is any mitigating circumstance. It matters not whether they have loved ones who might be grieved at their death. It matters not whether the knife is even real and you haven't misinterpreted the situation. You have taken the matter into your own hands and in the spur of the moment you have unilaterally decided that this person deserves to die. In a fraction of a second you have appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner. In a fraction of a second you have issued judgement, and in a fraction of a second you have dealt out the most irrevocable of punishments.

Can you even live with yourself after doing that?
Click to expand...
Suicidal empathy is wonderful in theory, but terrible in practice.
 
Trausti said:
Suicidal empathy is wonderful in theory, but terrible in practice.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been in a situation where someone was threatening a loved one with a knife? Has anyone reading this thread been in such a situation?

I've asked a number of American gun owners if they've ever had to use their gun in self-defence, and one person said that they once brandished it, but didn't shoot. When I questioned this I got the response "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". Which, while pithy, doesn't actually address any real world situations. How do you know that you "need" it? Can you critically evaluate every situation in the split second that is all that you have? No - you react, in the moment and without thought. And in an instant, someone's life is ended. Everything that they ever were or could have been is extinguished by a little squeeze.

I'm not comfortable with people having that kind of power. But in the United States of America (Freedom!) they do. And they exercise it on a depressingly regular basis.
 
arthwollipot said:
Have you ever been in a situation where someone was threatening a loved one with a knife? Has anyone reading this thread been in such a situation?

I've asked a number of American gun owners if they've ever had to use their gun in self-defence, and one person said that they once brandished it, but didn't shoot. When I questioned this I got the response "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". Which, while pithy, doesn't actually address any real world situations. How do you know that you "need" it? Can you critically evaluate every situation in the split second that is all that you have? No - you react, in the moment and without thought. And in an instant, someone's life is ended. Everything that they ever were or could have been is extinguished by a little squeeze.

I'm not comfortable with people having that kind of power. But in the United States of America (Freedom!) they do. And they exercise it on a depressingly regular basis.
Click to expand...
If it's on the street or elsewhere then brandishing may do and get away is best. But if someone has forcibly entered your home, they have announced their intention toward you and philosophical rumination is meaningless.
 
Trausti said:
If it's on the street or elsewhere then brandishing may do and get away is best. But if someone has forcibly entered your home, they have announced their intention toward you and philosophical rumination is meaningless.
Click to expand...
And they are therefore subhuman and it is okay to kill them without remorse, is that it? The moment they have crossed the threshold, they are an animal fit only to be put down?

When I refer to the American callous disregard for human life and dignity, this is what I'm talking about. Thank you for providing such a clear illustration.

#NotAllAmericans
 
arthwollipot said:
...You see someone who is apparently threatening a loved one with a knife, and you have a gun that you profess to own for "self-defence", so you shoot and kill them. It matters not whether they actually intended harm....
Click to expand...
Cute.

If I see someone holding a knife to a friend or relative of mine, and I have a gun, the guy with the knife is definitely getting shot.

I guess I just really care about my friends and loved ones.
 
Last edited:
America's gun violence problem is not "Imagine you're confronted by an armed intruder and you have a gun. Is it OK to shoot him?"

Whatever the path is to improving the situation, it's not going to be discovered by endlessly rewording versions of that scenario.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
America's gun violence problem is not "Imagine you're confronted by an armed intruder and you have a gun. Is it OK to shoot him?"

Whatever the path is to improving the situation, it's not going to be discovered by endlessly rewording versions of that scenario.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of gun owners never shoot anyone. Its only a very tiny fraction.

There are many other societies that have lots of guns, and MUCH lower violent crime rates than the USA. Clearly the problem is not too many guns.
 
Hercules56 said:
Cute.

If I see someone holding a knife to a friend or relative of mine, and I have a gun, the guy with the knife is definitely getting shot.
Click to expand...
Somebody might be, quite possibly your loved one. Don;t take this the wrong way, brah, but you don't sound like a crack shot marksman who has taken a lot of time to practice realistic scenarios. The odds of you putting a bullet in your loved one are not exactly non-zero.
Hercules56 said:
I guess I just really care about my friends and loved ones.
Click to expand...
I don't make as heavy a distinction between people I personally care about and a stranger. The only difference is that I would likely sacrifice myself more readily for one of my kids than a stranger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom