Gun control

[Mycroft]

Probably. But in such a condition I would be very biased, and my opinions with not be of much merit. You have to weigh things fairly, with everyone's emotions counting equally. Surely you must agree that there is such a thing as going too far when dealing with criminals. Is it right to perform ocular rape on people who shoplift? Assuming you say no, then you must agree that there is a line between appropriate and inappropriate punishment, and that people do not give up absolutely all rights when they commit a crime. The question is merely where to draw the line. Perhaps rapists should be killed, perhaps they shouldn't. I don't know. Rape is very very bad, and I admit I have understated this badness tremendously, but you can't dismiss the question out of hand simply because they "initiated aggression."

You're confusing self-defense with punishment.

When you're defending yourself, you don't need to consider if the attacker deserves what you're about to do to him in self-defense. You only need to consider that you have the right to prevent someone else from harming or killing you.

Punishment is for a court of law to determine, after the event, after a jury has established guilt.

 

[RandFan]

You're confusing self-defense with punishment.

When you're defending yourself, you don't need to consider if the attacker deserves what you're about to do to him in self-defense. You only need to consider that you have the right to prevent someone else from harming or killing you.

Punishment is for a court of law to determine, after the event, after a jury has established guilt.

Agreed, but there should be a reasonable expectation of harm before a person seriously harms or kills another in self defense.

 

[Freakshow]

Agreed, but there should be a reasonable expectation of harm before a person seriously harms or kills another in self defense.

Of course. I don't think anyone here is talking about killing someone because they tell you "I don't like your shoes."

 

[UserGoogol]

Because humans are sentient, and are capable of making choices and thinking about the consequences of those choices. That includes rapists.

Just because people are capable of foreseeing the consequences of their actions (to a point) does not neccesarily imply that those consequences are ethical. Is does not imply ought.

And of course, to what extent can we really be said to make choices? Ultimately, we're just bags of meat, and our actions are determined by our prior inputs, our compositions, and a bit of random jitter. Thus, the concept of responsability "ultimately" lying with some individual seems slightly simplistic to me. Everything effects everything else. It seems more that responsability is a social construct which tends to be a beneficial way to get people to not be bad. Thus, its merit can only be weighed to the extent to which it produces benefit for the people involved.

You're confusing self-defense with punishment.

I just can't help but thinking it's a matter of semantics to some degree.

 

[Freakshow]

Just because people are capable of foreseeing the consequences of their actions (to a point) does not neccesarily imply that those consequences are ethical. Is does not imply ought.

And of course, to what extent can we really be said to make choices? Ultimately, we're just bags of meat, and our actions are determined by our prior inputs, our compositions, and a bit of random jitter. Thus, the concept of responsability "ultimately" lying with some individual seems slightly simplistic to me.

Opinions vary. I happen to think that choices and responsibility are the absolute most significant thing in human existence. Which is why I have ZERO sympathy for people that make really bad choices. Life's tough.

ETA: I don't want others to have sympathy for my bad choices, either. I like to be left alone to succeed or fail based on my own actions. I don't want anyone's sympathy because I screwed up.

 

[Freakshow]

I just can't help but thinking it's a matter of semantics to some degree.

Why is that? You don't think different situations have different problems, different standards, and different solutions?

 

[RandFan]

I just can't help but thinking it's a matter of semantics to some degree.

While I don't agree I should point out that you are quoting the wrong person.

 

[UserGoogol]

Ah sorry, fixed it.

 

[Mycroft]

Just because people are capable of foreseeing the consequences of their actions (to a point) does not neccesarily imply that those consequences are ethical. Is does not imply ought.

But it's fair, I think, to place the responsibility for those consequences on the one who begins a conflict by initiating violence towards someone else.

And of course, to what extent can we really be said to make choices? Ultimately, we're just bags of meat, and our actions are determined by our prior inputs, our compositions, and a bit of random jitter. Thus, the concept of responsability "ultimately" lying with some individual seems slightly simplistic to me. Everything effects everything else. It seems more that responsability is a social construct which tends to be a beneficial way to get people to not be bad. Thus, its merit can only be weighed to the extent to which it produces benefit for the people involved.

The we can affect everyone by agreeing that we're not too concerned if an attempted rapist gets killed for his anti-social decisions. This will discourage people from being rapists.

I just can't help but thinking it's a matter of semantics to some degree.

I disagree strongly. A person in the position of defending themselves against rape or murderous violence should not be in the position of evaluating what the perpetuator "deserves." All they need to understand at that moment is they have the right to prevent their victimization.

Assuming the perpetuator survives, punishment comes later.

 

[shecky]

A number of differences. One is the people and processes that are being followed. For example, although I would be opposed to the victim going into the rapists house and killing him, I would not be opposed to the police going into the rapists house and arresting him. And if found guilty, I wouldn't be opposed to a very long prison sentance.

Another difference is the severity. As bad of a crime as it is to rape a woman, it is not as bad as someone murdering/ordering the murder of dozens, hundreds, or thousands. More severe crimes call for more severe measures and punishments.

The only real difference I see is who has the authority to decide. The individual must surrender to the authority of the government, while the government can pretty much do what it wishes. The protocols it follows are usually just window dressing.

 

[luchog]

This is interesting to me. Why do people who are pro-gun have to be serious right-wingers?.

I, personally, am neither right nor left, i'm libertarian (financially conservative, socially liberal); and I am "pro-gun". An aquaintance (one of my partner's friends) is a hardcore (really hardcore) socialist; and just as hardcore a defender of firearm ownership and concealed carry. So yes, IME, there are definitely left-wing pro-gun advocates.

 

[Mephisto]

Probably. But in such a condition I would be very biased, and my opinions with not be of much merit. You have to weigh things fairly, with everyone's emotions counting equally. Surely you must agree that there is such a thing as going too far when dealing with criminals.

Yes, you WOULD be biased, wouldn't you? You can imagine how biased the victims would be too.

You tell me that I have to weigh things fairly and that everyone's emotions count equally . . . Well, I don't buy it! The rapist's (or robber's) emotions are of the most base nature (using violence, sexual gratification, aggressive control over another person, etc.), while the victim's emotions can justifiably range from fear to anger.

If the victim's emotions are triggered by their unwilling involvement in a violent crime - isn't THAT one of the things the criminal might suspect would happen? Isn't the uncertainty of the reaction to his aggression (or the uncertainty of the reaction of passers-by) part of the "occupational hazards" of being a criminal? WHY must I consider the emotions of a man armed with a knife, or gun or club coming at my family before I blow him away?

Just for fun, I think we should try a simple scenario, UserGoogol;

Let's pretend that you're asleep at night and your family is safe and snug in their beds. You hear a loud noise, followed by the sound of breaking glass. There are footsteps in your family room, following by hushed whispers and you KNOW that someone who doesn't belong in your home has just gained entry. Now, while your thoughts are racing, you realize that anyone breaking into an obviously occupied home (both cars in the driveway, nightlite in the kitchen, toys scattered about the yard, etc.) is apparently NOT concerned that the homeowners are still inside. That should tell you that they are prepared to do violence.

You reach for the telephone, but realize it's not working (whether they've cut the phone lines or unplugged the base station isn't immediately apparent), and now you hear the voices moving down the hallway towards your bedroom and the bedrooms of your children.

There are three things within reach of your bed as you silently move to confront the invaders: a pair of scissors, a Bible, a broken pool cue. Which do you reach for?

 

[RandFan]

There are three things within reach of your bed as you silently move to confront the invaders: a pair of scissors, a Bible, a broken pool cue. Which do you reach for?

I'd want to know where the hell my gun is?

 

[Mephisto]

I'd want to know where the hell my gun is?

Me too, RF.

Although the same result could be had with either the scissors OR the broken pool cue IF you've had years of realistic training. My point being, of course, that you can certainly defend yourself with any weapon-like object, but the tool made for the purpose is usually best, and generally requires less training than hand-to-hand combat with expedient items. It also allows your wife (or children if they've been taught) the ability to protect themselves if you're not there.

Now, being concerned with the "emotions of the aggressor" and the life of the criminal, the only item UserGoogle could logically pick up to defend his family would be the Bible - well, that and the hopes that his home invaders are afraid of a religious paper-weight!

 

[luchog]

Me too, RF.

Although the same result could be had with either the scissors OR the broken pool cue IF you've had years of realistic training.

And there isn't too much of a discrepancy between your size/skills and those of your attacker.

One thing that many of those "home alive" martial arts classes don't make mention of, is that all of those skills can be effectively negated by a great enough size differential. A unarmed 105 pound women is simply not going to be able to beat a 225 pound man, unless she is very very lucky.

 

[epepke]

Agreed, but there should be a reasonable expectation of harm before a person seriously harms or kills another in self defense.

There is a calculus, but in order for self-defense to be effective, it has to be a threshold. Binary. Up until that point, by all means try to talk one's way out of it, cringe, retreat, all that stuff. After that point, shoot until the assailant can't move any more.

Fortunately, I've never gotten to that threshold. I'm a big guy, and I have studied anthropology, and I can talk. I've gotten out of many extremely dicey situations that way. But once that threshold has been reached, a conscious opponent always has to be considered a threat. Disable the opponent. If that means shattering the pelvis, so be it. If it means killing, so be it.

 

[Miggins]

Well, at least you admit it.

Psst- just thought I`d pop back while no-ones looking to say that I was fibbing then ,and I did think I knew what I was talking about really.
I just said that to stop the them roughing me up.....