Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 44 of 64 1 2 42 43 44 45 46 63 64
#113857 - 02/05/13 02:35 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574
So I read your Atlantic article, was more sensible than some. It jumped the shark when it described Obamas initiative as "plausible" though.

---
Quote: ""
Here are some approaches that don't seem to work, at least not by themselves, or in the ways they've been tried so far:

Stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes.
Gun buy-backs: In a country with one gun per person, getting a few thousand guns off the street in each city may not mean very much.
Safe storage laws and public safety campaigns.

We don't really have good enough evidence to evaluate these strategies:

Background checks, such as the Brady Act requires.
Bans on specific weapons types, such as the expired 1994 assault weapons ban or the handgun bans in various cities.

These policies do actually seem to reduce gun violence, at least somewhat or in some cases:

More intensive probation strategies: increased contact with police, probation officers and social workers.
Changes in policing strategies, such increased patrols in hot spots.
Programs featuring cooperation between law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods.
""

This is a pretty good summation, its only mistake is that it is known (and common sense) that bans on guns with certain cosmetic features would not impact crime.

Also, with regard to high capacity mags - even if none were available reloading a modern firearm takes a few seconds tops, in the context of a one sided shooting it is illogical to think it makes a material difference.

The summation regarding things known to work is however, correct. In a nutshell: members of a community working to combat crime combined with law enforcement that works with the local individuals as opposed to against them.

Which is why I find it hard not to see ulterior motives in these who want to disarm the populace. It has been well known for a long time, that if you want to combat violent criminal behavior - a civic minded populace with properly functioning law enforcement agency makes it extremely difficult for crime to thrive.

Most gun violence occurs is the poorest areas, where guns are banned , law enforcement is scarce and considers itself at odds with the population and civic thoughts are far from foremost among the locals concerns. Even taking the fact that guns are effectively banned out of the equation, its still a recipe for social disaster.

If you want to reduce crime and violence, including gun violence - especially in the hardest hit areas that account for the bulk of the statistics - the recipe is well known. You clean up the local police depts , kick out the old cronies and good ole boys, put more badges actually on the beat, and reach out to the locals.

The above method has been reasonably if not very successful in pretty much every serious implementation.

As the article notes, mass shootings are extremely rare. Ofc what the big event is differs on year. Last year it was a mass shooting. I remember a few years before that, some old geezer moved down a few dozen people with his car at a farmers market. Which is why I dont think firearm access will ever address the "crazy" problem. Even though the geezeer mentioned wasnt crazy, if guns werent available someone bent on making headline news by causing mass carnage can look to any number of other extremely easy means and methods - from homemade bombs to hijacking a fuel truck at a gas station to simply grabbing a beater car and playing crazy taxi IRL.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#113866 - 02/05/13 04:34 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sethan]  
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,707
Kaotic Offline
KGB Senator
Kaotic  Offline
KGB Senator
****

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,707
Lafayette, LA
Originally Posted By: Sethan
Looks like he was a older man that lived by himself and had his house broken into several times recently.
Clearly there is no reason for this man, or anyone for that matter to own guns, the police are there to protect you write reports each time your life is threatened.


[Linked Image]
#113868 - 02/05/13 05:15 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
Daye Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Daye  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
League City, TX
"Property, no. Breaking into a home...absolutely."

Donk hit it perfectly.

However, the property part depends on what the individual is doing there. Don't go all commando on
the Jehova's Witness folks leaving books on your front porch. However, finding your neighborhood thugs
trying to force your back window at 2am is another story completely.

Use a suppressor if you want to be considerate of your neighbors :D


The lesson here is: Don't tresspass with stupid intentions. Especially if you're beligerant about it
( you want to be hostile ), carrying anything that can be used as a weapon, or are there in numbers.

It WILL get you killed.



The official version: ( TEXAS )


9.41 : PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force
against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in
using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately
or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.




9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and


(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property
would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

#113900 - 02/05/13 11:38 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Daye]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,516
Helemoto Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Helemoto  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,516
Nebraska,Omaha
This to me comes to State Rights.

Everyone has the right to own firearms.
Granted some limits are put on certain people, felons, mental....
The Feds are the last people who should be putting in laws(if they only enforced the ones on the books new laws would not be needed).
Each city in each state has the right to ban guns in city limits. Most of the problems would be solved if the city with problem banned guns, ask New York City they banned them and they now have no gun problems.


[Linked Image]
#113910 - 02/06/13 12:24 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Daye]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Yep, when I lived in Texas I was always extra careful not to go onto anyone's property, even when invited. With laws like these, judging intentions of your dead carcase would be left to fellow gun-nut-friendly jury.

Shooting someone to protect yourself - yes. Shooting someone who is not a threat to you - no. There are some gray areas in between these, but executing someone in cold blood has to be avoided at all costs.


#113912 - 02/06/13 12:27 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sethan]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Originally Posted By: Sethan
I would rather the old man be alive and in court for overkill then killed by 2 aggressors. No matter how you spin the scenario they were the aggressors and he just happen to get the drop on them.


You are confusing aggressors as perpetrators in the burglary and aggressors as to out to kill him. It wasn't even established that these two teenagers were armed, and from how article presented this story - it was clear that old man had no time to assess the situation, he simply shot to kill from an ambush.


#113915 - 02/06/13 01:35 AM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,294
Donkleaps Offline
KGB Senator
Donkleaps  Offline
KGB Senator
****

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,294
Armed or not, when you are a criminal and breaking into someones home you should expect that if the resident is home you will probably die.


[Linked Image]
#113941 - 02/06/13 02:19 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Donkleaps]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Originally Posted By: Donkleaps
Armed or not, when you are a criminal and breaking into someones home


No argument up to this point.

Quote:
you should expect that if the resident is home you will probably die.


Couple problems with this.

If this is expectation, then as an armed intruder you have an incentive to shoot to kill if surprised by a homeowner. It turns burglaries into burglaries and homicide. This situation puts homeowners in more danger than a situation where homeowner is known to be unarmed.

Fatally shooting someone in your house. We do not execute for burglary even after criminals were convicted by a jury, what is the justification for letting homeowner do this?

How do you establish criminal intent after intruder was shot dead on sight? It could have been confused drunk neighbor or some other unlikely but valid reason.


Here is scenario where I wouldn't have objected:

Two teenagers break into the house, held at a gun point until police arrives.
Two teenagers break into the house, shot after giving a verbal warning and warning shot and making threatening moves (anything other than surrendering).

My problems with the scenario from the story:

1. At no point intruders were given a chance to respond - they were simply shot.
2. At no point threat to life was clearly established
3. After clearly disabling any possible threat (by shooting them) home owner continued aggression (repeated shooting to finish off)
4. Police and Ambulance were not called for 24h, denying whatever chance to survive was there

Way I see it: Based on 1-2, couple years in jail for reckless use of firearms. Based on 3-4 second degree murder charges.

Last edited by sini; 02/06/13 02:23 PM.

#113944 - 02/06/13 02:52 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
Daye Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Daye  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
League City, TX
Sinij:

As a homeowner, you have no idea what their intentions really are.

Here's a hint: If anyone breaks your window or kicks in your door to gain entry to your home, they're likely not there for a friendly chat.

Once inside and in control, you're at their mercy. Following your logic, you now have to hope they don't do something that will put you or your family on the news later on and into the FBI crime statistics database.

There isn't a day that goes by where the local news here runs yet another story about some home invasion somewhere in the area. Typically anywhere from 2-5 armed men force the door, tie everyone up and take everything. Sometimes they kill the folks inside, sometimes they don't. Hell, sometimes they even like to dress like the police so the homeowner will open the door themselves.

It is not my job to establish criminal intent. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they are standing in my home via illegal entry tells me they have no problems with breaking any laws to begin with. I'm not about to guess what their next plan of action is. I'm not going to give them the opportunity to put it into play.

It is my job to protect my home and those that live within it.

The safety of myself or my family trumps any rights or considerations for anyone who would illegally enter my home regardless of their intent.

If that means the intruders end up DRT, so be it.


Last edited by Daye; 02/06/13 03:01 PM.
#113945 - 02/06/13 03:33 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Daye]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
So Daye, would you sit in the dark basement armed to the teeth then repeatedly shoot unarmed teenagers while they are down, then proceed to drag their dying bodies into garage? Is this kind of a situation you can see yourself in?


Page 44 of 64 1 2 42 43 44 45 46 63 64

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.060s Queries: 16 (0.028s) Memory: 3.1538 MB (Peak: 3.2638 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-10-15 23:59:02 UTC