They appear to have increased the number of gun deaths without either reducing crime or resulting in valid justifiable homicides.
The dishonest arguments about guns versus blunt objects like baseball bats, or comparisons to car deaths is specious, not legitimate arguments.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not vigilantes. The castle doctrine laws have gone too far, diverge too much from their original intent which was violence, especially lethal violence, only as a last resort.
Killing is bad WB. Private killing is worse, rather than the exercise of force by duly authorized law enforcement.
The problem with these laws is that they reduce the value of human life (and put paid to the argument that these politicians are in anyway "pro-life"--they are for forcing women to have children).
Yet another aspect of the Silly gun arguments is that self-defence allows for the use of deadly force as a first option, although that is the way that US law has gone (as opposed to other common law jurisdictions). The doctrine of self-defence only allows for only that force which is reasonable to stop the threat. Once the threat no longer exists, then any force used is excessive.
Also, the person who used force is not the person who will decide whether the force was reasonable since they would always say they acted reasonably. That is something for the court system to decide, not individuals. That is why other countries actually have trials after people engage in acts of "self-defence" (e.g., Tony Martin and Oscar Pistorius). They are even found guilty!
Somehow the concept of "rule of law" has gotten lost in US jurisprudence, that is that no one is above the law. for one person to determine that another's life is valueless is to make that person above the law.
The problem is that the "pro-gun" side is for anarchy and lawlessness, which your comments seriously demonstrates.
But, keep 'em coming, Weerd'y, people like yo are one of the best arguments for gun control out there!
FYI, all three of us here at Penigma are firearm proficient, and are or have been gun owners.
While it is true that I took the most advanced possible training to acquire a firearm and permit, I NEVER relied on a firearm for self-defense. I did that on the strong advice of courts and law enforcement to deal with a crazy person who was identified as dangerous.
Having done that, I did not believe that weapons was particularly useful or essential to my safety.
Likewise, I know from our conversations that Laci as well has not relied on firearms but rather on other training for his own defense.
More important that that however is that looking at the sources of actual gun violence in this country, there are few cases where gun violence IS legitimate or justified. The vast majority of instances are NOT justified -- like the NRA president's son who is in jail, or has just gotten out of jail, for his using a firearms in a road rage shooting, or shootings like Melaenie Hain and her husband.
The boogeyman of justifiable shootings has been exaggerated, and is NOT a good argument for the proliferation of guns in our gun culture.
Try again. You are still failing. We are not being hypocritical, if that is your premise. None of the three of us are worried about justifiable shootings, nor are we using a firearm for that purpose.
Given the pattern of shootings in this country, they are a poor justification for our current failed gun culture or our lack of gun regulation failures.
If we need to increase our law enforcement, that would be better for us as a nation than more private guns for the rare, supposedly justifiable shootings.
So, in your opinion, carrying a firearm is a licence to kill?
Unlike you, I found myself in places which were "frightening" by nature of working in the criminal justice system and spending 10 years in the military. I never found the situation so extreme that deadly force would have been an option. I would never pull my weapon just because I was scared.
And I have probably been in scarier situations than you will ever find yourself.
In fact, as a lawyer and former soldier, I am well aware of my legal liabilities should I have used my weapon even in circumstances which you might believe would justify use of deadly force. In fact, if we are getting into it I am far more aware of the legalities of the use of deadly force than someone who cleans test tubes for a living. Any use of a firearm on my part would have been tempered by that training and knowledge.
I also note that you correctly say that we "have both owned and carried firearms for self defense". That is past tense. Because someone had occasion or need to carry in the past for whatever reason does not mean they endorse the use of deadly force.
It is facile to compare me to the average person on the street who is pretty much untrained as to how to avoid using force, alternatives to deadly force, when it is proper to use force, and the legal ramifications for using force.
Unless, you are seriously proposing that you are willing to pay the thousands of dollars and the time to train yourself to that level, then you are being a fool by trying to compare yourself to me.
Additionally, since you believer that deadly force is a first option, you are seriously not the type of person who should have access to a weapon.
Personally, I do not see firearms as being the best option for self-defence. I have successfully defended myself with non-lethal force,.
So, instead of showing us to be "hypocrites", you demonstrate that you are a fool who is really more of an argument why we need stronger gun control laws.
I should add the use of a firearm in combat is not self-defence, nor is is comparable to any possible civilian applications. Should you find yourself in such a situation, you are not in a peaceful society, but one where society has totally broken down.
I'm against the shoot first laws, yes.
ReplyDeleteThey appear to have increased the number of gun deaths without either reducing crime or resulting in valid justifiable homicides.
The dishonest arguments about guns versus blunt objects like baseball bats, or comparisons to car deaths is specious, not legitimate arguments.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not vigilantes. The castle doctrine laws have gone too far, diverge too much from their original intent which was violence, especially lethal violence, only as a last resort.
Killing is bad WB. Private killing is worse, rather than the exercise of force by duly authorized law enforcement.
I know it is hard for you WB, but try an honest argument next time, or don't comment.
DeleteWhen is murder justifiable?
DeleteThe problem with these laws is that they reduce the value of human life (and put paid to the argument that these politicians are in anyway "pro-life"--they are for forcing women to have children).
Yet another aspect of the Silly gun arguments is that self-defence allows for the use of deadly force as a first option, although that is the way that US law has gone (as opposed to other common law jurisdictions). The doctrine of self-defence only allows for only that force which is reasonable to stop the threat. Once the threat no longer exists, then any force used is excessive.
Also, the person who used force is not the person who will decide whether the force was reasonable since they would always say they acted reasonably. That is something for the court system to decide, not individuals. That is why other countries actually have trials after people engage in acts of "self-defence" (e.g., Tony Martin and Oscar Pistorius). They are even found guilty!
Somehow the concept of "rule of law" has gotten lost in US jurisprudence, that is that no one is above the law. for one person to determine that another's life is valueless is to make that person above the law.
The problem is that the "pro-gun" side is for anarchy and lawlessness, which your comments seriously demonstrates.
But, keep 'em coming, Weerd'y, people like yo are one of the best arguments for gun control out there!
Said by two people who have both owned and carried firearms for self defense.
DeleteThis is exactly the answer I expected and hoped for, Thanks!
Incorrect Andrew.
DeleteFYI, all three of us here at Penigma are firearm proficient, and are or have been gun owners.
While it is true that I took the most advanced possible training to acquire a firearm and permit, I NEVER relied on a firearm for self-defense. I did that on the strong advice of courts and law enforcement to deal with a crazy person who was identified as dangerous.
Having done that, I did not believe that weapons was particularly useful or essential to my safety.
Likewise, I know from our conversations that Laci as well has not relied on firearms but rather on other training for his own defense.
More important that that however is that looking at the sources of actual gun violence in this country, there are few cases where gun violence IS legitimate or justified. The vast majority of instances are NOT justified -- like the NRA president's son who is in jail, or has just gotten out of jail, for his using a firearms in a road rage shooting, or shootings like Melaenie Hain and her husband.
The boogeyman of justifiable shootings has been exaggerated, and is NOT a good argument for the proliferation of guns in our gun culture.
Try again. You are still failing. We are not being hypocritical, if that is your premise. None of the three of us are worried about justifiable shootings, nor are we using a firearm for that purpose.
Given the pattern of shootings in this country, they are a poor justification for our current failed gun culture or our lack of gun regulation failures.
If we need to increase our law enforcement, that would be better for us as a nation than more private guns for the rare, supposedly justifiable shootings.
So, in your opinion, carrying a firearm is a licence to kill?
DeleteUnlike you, I found myself in places which were "frightening" by nature of working in the criminal justice system and spending 10 years in the military. I never found the situation so extreme that deadly force would have been an option. I would never pull my weapon just because I was scared.
And I have probably been in scarier situations than you will ever find yourself.
In fact, as a lawyer and former soldier, I am well aware of my legal liabilities should I have used my weapon even in circumstances which you might believe would justify use of deadly force. In fact, if we are getting into it I am far more aware of the legalities of the use of deadly force than someone who cleans test tubes for a living. Any use of a firearm on my part would have been tempered by that training and knowledge.
I also note that you correctly say that we "have both owned and carried firearms for self defense". That is past tense. Because someone had occasion or need to carry in the past for whatever reason does not mean they endorse the use of deadly force.
It is facile to compare me to the average person on the street who is pretty much untrained as to how to avoid using force, alternatives to deadly force, when it is proper to use force, and the legal ramifications for using force.
Unless, you are seriously proposing that you are willing to pay the thousands of dollars and the time to train yourself to that level, then you are being a fool by trying to compare yourself to me.
Additionally, since you believer that deadly force is a first option, you are seriously not the type of person who should have access to a weapon.
Personally, I do not see firearms as being the best option for self-defence. I have successfully defended myself with non-lethal force,.
So, instead of showing us to be "hypocrites", you demonstrate that you are a fool who is really more of an argument why we need stronger gun control laws.
I should add the use of a firearm in combat is not self-defence, nor is is comparable to any possible civilian applications. Should you find yourself in such a situation, you are not in a peaceful society, but one where society has totally broken down.
Delete