Why are guns made to kill?

Autolite said:
.....Remember that in Canada, it is highly improbable that you would have been permitted to carry a gun...
Click to expand...

I know it is unlikely I would ever carry a gun in Canada. :) I meant using any deadly force, such as the thief's own weapon or just beating him up until he stopped being a threat.

Ranb
 
Autolite said:
FWIU, where shooting vandals is legally justifiable, there are applicable laws that determine when you can and can't shoot. Is this not the case? Wouldn't these laws be used to determine whether or not the shooter was responsible or irresponsible???
Click to expand...

The thing is there is a difference between acting in a legaly responcible manner and acting in a ethicaly responcible maner. They might well not be the same.
 
Ranb said:
I know it is unlikely I would ever carry a gun in Canada. :) I meant using any deadly force, such as the thief's own weapon or just beating him up until he stopped being a threat.

Ranb
Click to expand...

So you believe in useing a weapon against an unarmed individual? That is likely what you would be doing if you used the thief's weapon against them.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you believe in useing a weapon against an unarmed individual? That is likely what you would be doing if you used the thief's weapon against them.
Click to expand...

If an unarmed person is attacking me, then I will take all the advantage I can to reduce my chance of injury. I do believe in defending myself, so yes I could defend myself with a weapon against an unarmed assailant. I am disabled and can hardly run with bad knees and a fused ankle.

If a thief attacks me and I take away his weapon, why should I believe that it was the only weapon they have on them? Surely you do not think I would throw away the knife to make things more even? Should I give a thief what they want so as to encourage them to continue in this line of work?

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I know it is unlikely I would ever carry a gun in Canada. :) I meant using any deadly force, such as the thief's own weapon or just beating him up until he stopped being a threat.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Well, the Canadian Criminal Code says that you are permited to use the minimum "necessary" force to counter a threat (please don't ask for a link as I think I am begining to go blind from reading the C.C.C. online). So really it is up to the laywers and courts to determine if the force you employed was reasonable or not. If for example your assallant was a 13 year old with a penknife, you might have a hard time of it in court should the kid end up hospitalized with a permanent brain injury or something...
 
ponderingturtle said:
The thing is there is a difference between acting in a legaly responcible manner and acting in a ethicaly responcible maner. They might well not be the same.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, morality is subjective. Laws are intended to represent the collective morality of the general populace. In a perfect world that would indeed be the case ...
 
ponderingturtle said:
The goal of course is to determine how you can legaly kill people, not figure out how to be the most safe.
Click to expand...

The goal is to determine, in the split second you'll have to make an out-of-the-blue, life or death decision, whether a specific instance is one where you'll pull and fire your weapon... which means imagining as many possible scenarios as you can think of.

Someone who kills someone because they think they can probably get away with it has a great chance of winding up in prison for many years. Same goes for shooting somebody for any reason other than "life was in imminent danger." I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hope to God I never, ever, ever have to pull my gun outside of a firing range. Because if I do it's to kill, and even the most justifiable shooting is going to leave serious emotional scarring before even thinking about the legal ramifications.

But I still carry everywhere I legally can... because I'd always rather deal with all that after the fact than be lying on the ground bleeding to death thinking "Damn I wish I'd had a gun."
 
Last edited:
Autolite said:
Agreed. However, morality is subjective. Laws are intended to represent the collective morality of the general populace. In a perfect world that would indeed be the case ...
Click to expand...

Laws represent what law makers want. That is often not the same thing as collective morality. Take prohibition in the US, that was never something a majority of the people wanted, but with the right lobbying a constitutional ammendment got passed.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you are for shooting people who are commiting crimes even if they are just property crimes?
Click to expand...
If you had been with Jews on Kristallnacht would you have said "these are just property crimes"?

I am genuinely curious, these are not rhetorical questions. What would you have advised the Jews (the few who still had weapons) to do at that time?

I try to answer that question two different ways, in one way I try to imagine that I am living in the times and know nothing about what is to come next. Alternatively I ask in terms of what history shows did happen. I've gotten different answers from myself over the years.
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
The goal is to determine, in the split second you'll have to make an out-of-the-blue, life or death decision, whether a specific instance is one where you'll pull and fire your weapon... which means imagining as many possible scenarios as you can think of.

Someone who kills someone because they think they can probably get away with it has a great chance of winding up in prison for many years. Same goes for shooting somebody for any reason other than "life was in imminent danger." I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hope to God I never, ever, ever have to pull my gun outside of a firing range. Because if I do it's to kill, and even the most justifiable shooting is going to leave serious emotional scarring before even thinking about the legal ramifications.

But I still carry everywhere I legally can... because I'd always rather deal with all that after the fact than be lying on the ground bleeding to death thinking "Damn I wish I'd had a gun."
Click to expand...

All depends on the state you are in. There in say texas and florida, you seem to be able to do a lot of thinking with out an dirrect threat to you and have it still be legal.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Woohoo, we have attained Godwin.

And the stripping of rights would be more worrying than random property crimes.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the Goodwin principle apply to calling someone a name and not the discussion of an issue in a serious way?

I was not calling you anything. I was asking a question in all sincerity. I am not trying to win the debate with this as I was being honest about having different answers to the question for myself over the years.

ETA. Calling Goodwin where it does not apply is a way to trivialize the debate.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
All depends on the state you are in. There in say texas and florida, you seem to be able to do a lot of thinking with out an dirrect threat to you and have it still be legal.
Click to expand...
Oh same here in SC. The Castle Doctrine is pretty broad, and I've got no problem with that. I'm not going to shoot someone to keep them from stealing my car stereo, but I'd rather the law favored the old man who did over the criminal who wants to sue later on because he should have had the right to steal with impunity.

Which, of course, is why we're taught in our CWP class to fire three shots center mass (chest area). If you shoot to wound you're telling a potential jury you felt there were non-lethal options to shooting (which screws you if shoot someone in the leg and he bleeds to death).

And besides, corpses can't file lawsuits.
clint.gif
 
A significant difference here appears to be that Americans feel they should use deadly force to protect property. I wonder if that's a big part of it. Materialism. Americans appear to place a much, much higher value on material possessions than people in many other countries.

It wouldn't upset me too much if possessions of mine were stolen. It's just stuff. I can always buy more stuff. The best protection against property crime is insurance, not a gun.

But a human life can never be replaced, even if it's insured. I just don't consider anything I own to be worth a human life. Any human life.
 
gumboot said:
But a human life can never be replaced, even if it's insured. I just don't consider anything I own to be worth a human life. Any human life.
Click to expand...
I don't have anything I'd kill for. But if I thought my life was in danger through no fault of my own, I'd kill a whole slew of gang members dumb enough to break into my house without their guns already drawn.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I referenced firearms deaths, then you started talking about murder. So then what about the non murderous firearms deaths?
Click to expand...

If you read my post again, then you will see I did not respond to your comment about firearm deaths. No goalposts were moved.

What about non murderous firearms deaths?

Ranb
 
gumboot said:
A significant difference here appears to be that Americans feel they should use deadly force to protect property. I wonder if that's a big part of it. Materialism. Americans appear to place a much, much higher value on material possessions than people in many other countries......
Click to expand...

Which Americans here (on JREF) claim to be willing to use deadly force to protect property?

Ranb
 
gumboot said:
A significant difference here appears to be that Americans feel they should use deadly force to protect property. I wonder if that's a big part of it. Materialism. Americans appear to place a much, much higher value on material possessions than people in many other countries.

It wouldn't upset me too much if possessions of mine were stolen. It's just stuff. I can always buy more stuff. The best protection against property crime is insurance, not a gun.

But a human life can never be replaced, even if it's insured. I just don't consider anything I own to be worth a human life. Any human life.
Click to expand...

I respect both your thoughts and manner of expressing them on this very much Gumboot.

I don't speak for all but certainly for myself I think that my opinion of property rights would be different from yours. My avatar comes from the property rights movement inspired by Kelo V. New London.

I am curious if you have ever had anything stolen from your home, particularly something irreplaceable such as a family heirloom.

Got to go to dinner -- Hope you all had or are having a very happy Valentines Day.

ETA...property is not normally worth a life & death struggle...I'm not arguing that it is in any but extreme circumstances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom