Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

Murdoch said:
By not treating offendors civilly you are in essnce lowering yourself to their level and breaking the same social contracts they are.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but we aren't dealing with textbook ethics here. A lot of people either haven't noticed or are well insulated from it, but the world is not a pretty place, and civilization is set up to protect us from that fact. Guess what? Once you are in a situation like that you are already outside of the world of civility and social contracts, whether you like it or not, and thus those concepts are meaningless. I take it you've never been mugged at gunpoint, been jumped by 5 people for no reason, or seen a friend put in the hospital because someone kicked his head in with a steel-toed boot?

And if by taking the moral high ground all you accomplish is signifying your respect for life law and society, I don't think there is much else to do, no?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very noble and very fitting for a play or novel or some politicians speech. However, my experience with the world, as limited as it may be, leads me to believe that taking the moral high ground isn't going to keep someone from pocketing your paycheck or prevent them from fucking with you. If my girlfriend was about to be raped, I could live a lot easier with her shooting the guy than with her "turning the other cheek", or saying to herself "Rape is an act of violence, and by fighting back I am perpetuating that cycle of violence. I will therefore not struggle, but instead attempt to reason with him and convince him that sexual assualt is wrong" while she is being raped.


I suggest you recuse yourself if ever asked to serve on a jury Montez.
Click to expand...

Because I'd sentence an innocent man to the gas chamber because I'm a bloodthirsty lunatic, right? I have no plans to decieve anyone on my views if I'm ever called for jury duty. I know you meant this as an insult, but I don't feel any shame in thinking that murderers, rapists, and other criminals deserve punishment, and punishment more fitting to their crimes than is now given to them. Maybe you feel that justice is being done when a muderer or rapist is given a 10 year prison sentence with parole in 2 years, but I sure as hell don't.
 
Well, that clears up something Montez.

To the first point. No I have not, and I assume you have? I am sorry that those horrible things happened to you, truly. Once you are outside the world of civility an eye for an eye is acceptable. I was referring to society, however, where an eye for an eye in unacceptable. If I was muged at gunpoint, survival and self defense would certainly kick in and you would be justified. But in a courtroom this kind of justice is not really justice, since it defies the social contract.

To the second point. If my girlfriend was being raped, it would be acceptable, both legally and morally to shoot the bastard. Absolutely. But only because that circumstance is occuring outside of the social contrat. Once the rapist is apprehended and back within society's grasp, it is no longer acceptable to shoot him. Don't mistake me for a pacifist either. Violence can be justified, but not within the confines of society. Only justice is acceptable within society as a means of righting wrongs.

The third point. You mistook my statement for an insult. It most assuredly was not. Furthermore, you would not sentence him to the gas chamber because you are a lunatic (which is not to say that I am calling you one) but for two reasons. First, you do not gives sentences, a judge does that. The second and important one is that you are apparently not able to act in an unbiased manner, and consider the defendent innocent until proven guilty. Besides my discomfort with that attitude and your moderator status, you would be found in contempt (I think) because you are unable to judge fairly the tenets of society.

Thoughts?

And megatron, your points are silly for any number of reasons, and not well thought out in any case. I suggest taking some civics classes at least. How about some evidence while your at it?
 
(1)Yes, those things have happened to me, among others, and are the reason I feel the way I do about the subject.

(2)I agree that it wouldn't be fitting or right for "society", taken as a whole and represented by institutions, to do that sort of thing - I don't think I'd want to live in a society like that. Even within the bounds of what is civilized and ethical though I think the US system is extremely negligent in the way it deals with criminals. What's even more frustrating is that I think it's mainly financial in nature - ie, lighter sentences because the state saves money that way, not because they think it is a fitting punishment or enough time to "rehabilitate" someone. That combined with the ridiculous amount and variation of crimes commited at every level of society, from upper to lower class, and how they all seem to get nothing but a slap on the wrist, and I have a hard time believing that our societ's way of dealing with these issues is at all competent or worthwhile.

(3)I agree that I would have a bias in some things, and be unable to be objective where certain issues are concerned. All I can say is that I would be as honest as possible, and after that it's up to the lawyers to decide what my worth is as a juror.

Besides my discomfort with that attitude and your moderator status, you would be found in contempt (I think) because you are unable to judge fairly the tenets of society.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you meant by the moderator thing, but I hope you don't mean you're uncomfortable arguing with me because I'm a mod. If it doesn't have anything to do with breaking the rules of the forum, anything I or any other mod writes is as open to argument as anything anyone else writes.
 
And megatron, your points are silly for any number of reasons, and not well thought out in any case. I suggest taking some civics classes at least. How about some evidence while your at it?
Click to expand...
I'll try and expand on my points, le shrugge.

I don't think that turning the other cheek is acceptable when dealing with somebody who will happily rob or assault you. Therefore self-defense using any force other than lethal should be relevant. Whose to say how far a criminal is willing to go when attacking/robbing you? A criminal is a criminal. He has broken the law. When you break the law you have to take into account the risks and dangers of it. Civilians should be given more free-reign for violence against people who pose a threat. Killing some guy who was walking across your lawn though would be unacceptable, but the police should be able to see that.

I don't think criminals should be treated as nicely as they are recently either. People complaining about being treated badly by the police is silly. I don't see why we have too waste money so that people can live better than they do outside of prison when they're in prison. Prison-charges should be payed out of the prisoners pocket, not the countries. Police brutality is also a silly issue. I also think things like killers not telling the police where they've buried bodies and such should also be changed so the police can extract information with appropriate force.

The justice system is also stupid. If it's obvious that somebody is innocent I find it an insult for them too get charged with things that they wouldn't dream of doing. Equally stupid is people being able too get away with shit that they obviously did (if they have a criminal record or there general behaviour in court), such as jumping someone or robbing them. The former seems to require little evidence for a conviction while the latter needs witnesses and even when proven guilty it's usually not much of a punishment.

I don't think things like lowering yourself too other peoples level should matter if they instigated a crime. Neither should it matter when you're 'in' civilisation. A majority of the punishments in my opinion aren't severe enough, this doesn't sound very civilised. In a fair and civilised society a crime would be fairly punished. From what I've experienced, it usually isn't.

And if by taking the moral high ground all you accomplish is signifying your respect for life law and society, I don't think there is much else to do, no?
Click to expand...

If by taking the moral high ground against people who don't care about life, law and society and are generally the people who fuck it up for everyone else I don't think is really equal. You're left with a slightly positive feeling you didn't beat the shit out of them. So what? You've won over a single incident, meanwhile that person could return too society later and be generally uncivil (an ass). If more civilians stood up to criminals I think this would be a better deterant than the law.
 
It seems that the only justification some people want to use force is for the person to become a victim. Ugh, that's so World War twoish.
 
Murdoch, could you please tell me how you manage to distinguish between moments when you are somehow bound and the ones when you are not?
Ok so you are saying that we should treat the attacker according to the social contract we, theoreticaly both adhere to. What makes you think he is adhering to those rules since he is breaking them by breaking into MY house? It's a dog eat dog world and I would rather be a wolf that a sheep. I think it is safe to assume that the burglar is perfectly aware of the fact that there is a chance that the owner of the home he is trying to rob has some means of self defence, and a gun is the most likely choice, so he knows that there is a good chance he could die doing this yet he chose to go in anyway. I can assume that he does that because he is either very desperate, wich would make him extremely dangerous, in wich case I would be entitled to shoot him, or he came prepared, wich means that he is ready to hurt me to save his ass, wich gives me the right to do the same. In the end the burglar might have more rights than I do if he survives so I'm going to make this easy for myself, first bullet goes to the head, then I quickly yell freeze, then I fire a warning shot in the air. Baddie dead, problem solved. Don't get me wrong, I value and respect life, but my life and the lives of those dear to me will always come first.
Montez I agree with you: sentences are laughable, they should replace them with much stricter ones and enforce them. As for the serious offenders, like rapist, a killer or such should be fried after he gets all his appeals (I will not agree with the execution of a person that could be innocent) and is still found guilty.
Those were my two cents, take them as you will.
 
Paladin Solo said:
It seems that the only justification some people want to use force is for the person to become a victim. Ugh, that's so World War twoish.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand your first sentence, but the second sentence sounds like you're implying that the allies were unjustified in fighting the axis in WWII. Am I reading you right here?
 
Well I would beg to differ. I think what Solo meant was that the other guys are being too passive, that they are backing out when they should have the guts to stand and fight instead of trying to be understanding and pacifist, like The Allies were in WW II, permitting Hitler to annex Austria, and attack Czehoslovakia and Poland instead of creaming his ass in the first place.
 
Ah thanks, makes sense now. My reading comprehension isn't so good at 7am with no coffee in my system.
 
Montez:
About your mod status. My point is that as a mod you are supposed to be fair and impartial. But if you cannot do so in a courtroom, why can you do so here? Although this argument is a bad one, since you have been impartial, AFAIK, and impartiality in a courtroom and a computer forum are two different things. But this argument is unimportant in any case.

To your second point. Do you realize that the US has the highest incarceration rates in the developed world? Or that the US, along with other illustriuous company like Iran and the Sudan (I think) are the only countries that treat juveniles as adults in criminal proceedings? Do you realize that the US is one of the only industrialized countries that use the death penalty at all? Do you realize that mandatory minimum sentences incarcerate millions of people, and take the power of judging away from judges?

And you say that the US legal system is lax? Preposterous!

I would say that the US consequences for criminal behaviour are severe and would be a good deterrent, if they worked. But crime rates are still high, even after decreasing by 40% since 1997, higher than the rest of the industrialized world.

We do agree that the US's way of dealing with criminal behaviour is ridiculous, but we probably have radically different thoughts on how to fix it.

I'll bring this back to the orignial topic by asking do you think guns make you safer in this environment, or more vulnerable? But of course its not a question of simple "guns causing violence", and prison time, and everything. Violence is ingrained in American culture. We were borne from violence (1776ish) and continue that tradition til today via our independence and uwillingness to give up our guns. Reread what Welsh wrote earlier about this.

@c0ldst33ltrs4u
I define being within society's purview broadly as when people are acting in a civilized manner. These means we are not running around killing, raping and pillaging. So, when someone is doing those things, it is within your right to stop them by similarly uncivilized means, like shooting them. The fine line occurs when they cease doing whatever it is that's beyond civility. This moment is hard to define. I would say it occurs as soon as the offendor realizes they are being overpowered, whether it be by threat of shooting, physical restraint or arrest. At that point, your actions as their captor (using this analogy, which is not attempting to advocate vigilantism in any way) must be civil ones as well. You can no longer shoot them or such.

The problem with arguments that perpetrators have more rights than you do is that people generally do not understand this thin line between civility and non-civility, and therefore step over the line in the action of stopping the perpetrator. I would imagine that if you looked closely at the famous cases of burglars falling through skylights and winning lawsuits against their victims there would be reasons and justifications that don't make for good stories at the local watering hole. Or the justice system was taken advantage of. Either way these stories hold little weight for me, as they are the exception, not the rule.

@Megatron
You appear to be either ignoring or misreading my posts. Like many others here, I am tired of defending myself against accusations like yours that conjure pacificsm out of thin air. Your opinions about police brutality et al I respect, if disagree with. But notice that you are the one making these declaratory statements and then expecting me to defend my position against them. I'm trying to not get drawn into that.

I will respond to this though
If more civilians stood up to criminals I think this would be a better deterant than the law.
Click to expand...
This is called vigilante justice. This is also the wild west. It is impossible for this way of life to coincide with society, because it takes the decision about guilt out of the hands of the authorities and puts it into the hands of the people. We the people gave away this right upon agreeing to the social contract.
 
There the ones with no respect for human life. I care plenty for lives of humans and animals. But it doesn't mean I'd let someone get away with stealing off me, espeacially with the shitty justice system that's in place at the moment.

Also: shooting someone is a lot quicker and also would probably have a lower chance of killing them than stabbing them or beating the to death. If you're bothered about there feelings, perhaps you could take that into account.

What situation would it take for you, sander, to kill somebody? Self-defense? Revenge? War?
Click to expand...
A)Why does everyone seem so quick to assume that burglars are automatically killers?
B) R-E-A-D- -M-Y- -P-O-S-T-S! I have said over and over again that I would defend myself and my family, and I have said over and over again that simply shooting someone is unjustifiable, even if they broke into your home. You can hold them at gun point, but you don't just shoot them, unless they try to run away. Don't ever shoot them through the head or something like that, unless your life is being threatened. That's what I've been saying. And now I am out of this debate, because I'm getting sick and tired of having to repeat myself over and over again because you people just can't seem to read properly.
 
Murdoch said:
And you say that the US legal system is lax? Preposterous!
Click to expand...

Despite the above, I still say it is lax. Our country seems to treat the criminal problem as if it were similar to running a factory or assembly line: criminal goes in, generic sentence is applied, criminal goes out, on to the next one. For the amount of responsibility and power we give to judges, the requirements we demand of someone before they be made a judge, and the seriousness of the issue, they are extremely lax and negligent. Any middle manager could do the same thing a judge does in our legal system, and probably more efficiently. For the higher ups in the legal system, if they are not aware that our system does nothing to change or deter criminal behavior then they are idiots, and if they are aware then they are lax in their responsibility to do something about it.

We do agree that the US's way of dealing with criminal behaviour is ridiculous, but we probably have radically different thoughts on how to fix it.
Click to expand...

Maybe our views would be different, maybe not. I know the issue is extremely complex, and that any potential solution is going to involve a lot more than punishments and prisons. I'd just like for the system, until such time as a better solution is found, to keep the "rabid dogs" of civilization locked away from the rest of society instead of the cycle they have now of "capture, imprisonment, release, capture, imprisonment, release, etc". How many times does someone have to commit a crime before some idiot judge realizes their behavior is pathological? If they can't or won't find a better solution now or create a deterent that actually works, the least they could do is ensure that everyone is safe from repeat offenders.

I'll bring this back to the orignial topic by asking do you think guns make you safer in this environment, or more vulnerable? But of course its not a question of simple "guns causing violence", and prison time, and everything. Violence is ingrained in American culture. We were borne from violence (1776ish) and continue that tradition til today via our independence and uwillingness to give up our guns. Reread what Welsh wrote earlier about this.
Click to expand...

In the neighborhood I live in now, a gun would not only make me feel safer, I would actually be safer. My neighborhood is half lower class housing, half cheap apartments for college kids. Crime is usually more prevalent in lower class neighborhoods, and mine is no exception. Believe me, the "tough guy" act is 90% of the time just an act, so if two guys come up to you and demand your money and you pull a gun on them they will walk away, quickly, if not outright soil themselves.The college kids are mainly from what we affectionately call "Meathead University", and a significant portion of them think its the greatest thing in the world to get drunk a get into a fight. While I'm strong enough to take care of myself in a fight, I'd prefer to go through the rest of my life without worrying about being kicked in the crotch, fighting 3 people at once, or losing an eye from being kicked in the head. While some of them might be drunk or stupid enough to not be scared of a gun, they will all stop long enough for you to get out of the situation. So yes, a gun would indeed make me safer.

But, I don't have one and have no plans on getting one, for two reasons:

(1) I have no desire to hurt or kill anyone. If I was fighting for my life or really enraged I would shoot someone. Since 99.9% of the time I'm not in a situation like that, I have no desire to purchase something which could lead to me killing or hurting someone.

(2) I don't want to go to jail. In what has to be one of the great ironies of our age, if I were to shoot someone in self-defense with a legally purchased handgun I would most likely be put in jail or sued by the person I shot. I might not be in jail long, and I might not be successfully sued, but the chances of one or the other happening are so high that my desire to avoid jail and my desire to not pay some scumbags medical bills outweigh my desire to feel and be safer.

I have to wonder sometimes if the supposed deterent effect of prison only works on those people who wouldn't commit any crimes in the first place. A criminal doesn't want to go to jail, but that doesn't stop them from committing crimes. A decent guy doesn't want to commit any crimes, and the thought of jail re-enforces that. It's good to know that the guy who isn't going to rob me has even more incentive to not rob me, that makes me feel pretty safe [/sarcasm].

So anyway, to finally respond to the thread title: I don't think guns are absolutely necessary for home defense, but they are helpful. And guns aren't a public menace, criminals are - if no criminal had a gun and every law-abiding citizen did, would guns even be an issue? It's the people involved, not the tools they use, that should be the issue. This seems to be the case with a lot of things in America - people get into a hysterical frenzy about symptoms and never look to causes. The only line I remember from all the William Burroughs books I've read is this: "The treatment is symptomatic". Meaning, the superficial appearances of a problem are taken care of, while the problem itself remains. Arguing about guns seems to me to be along this line.

As for the more philosophical part of your question, I'll have to put off replying to that as I've already written way too much for one post.
 
Paladin Solo said:
I think when he said it was lax, he meant we treat them like they are on a vacation Murdoch.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he meant. And if you think a maximum security prison is a vacation I beg to differ. I can't say how they are from personal experience anymore than you can, but suffice to say I doubt it is at all pleasant, what with the gang rapes and all.
 
The point was that certain individuals can live quite comfortably in prison, if they have the right connections. While the lack of freedom is a punishment overall prison can be considered a place where one can perfect his techniques, compare notes with other colleagues and overall improve his methods.
In my country it is even worse, the imprisoned "big-shots" have anything they want, cable TV, internet, any kind of food, booze, WOMEN, cellphones, wich are kept for them by the guards (when the cell rings, or when the guy needs it the guard gives it to him) and all of this can be accomplished with the help of the almighty dollar, or any other currency. There are, on the other hand the guys that have it so bad on the outside, no home, no job, no food, that they commit minor felonies just to get thrown in jail where they have a roof over their heads and three square meals a day.
 
Let's look at it this way... Wahington D.C. has the sticted gun control laws in the country, and also has one of the highest rates of murder by means of gun. Arizona on the other hand has some of the lest strict gun control laws in the county and also one of the lowest rates of murder by means of gun (although it has one of the hights rates of man slaughter by means of gun) I think there should be a law that makes it so that if you own a gun you have to have some sort of locking mechanism on it... their should be nothing else beyond that (keep the background check laws). It's not the people who obtain guns legally that we have to worry about... it's the people that obtain the illegally...

Also the prisons are pretty luxurious... my dad is a Private Investigator, and he's taken me to some of them to translate stuff for him... only real inconvenience seems to be the fact that you are locked inside a cage (a frickin' nice cage though!). Youu can get almost anything in a prison... and the govenment does it because they don't want to be sued...
 
I was sorta thinking of them for keeping little kids from shooting themselves... not gun violence... the only way to reduce that is to keep guns legal... you can get a hold of anything if you try hard enough... if the regular law abiding people don't have guns then those who use them against them won't have much resistence... maybe I feel this way because I grew up around guns... (my Dad's a retired police fire-arms instructor) but it just seems stupid to get rid of them...
 
CeleSTiaLFuRY said:
but it just seems stupid to get rid of them...
Click to expand...

Well, you can't really get rid of them. Firearms are a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. To return to the example of Great Britain, despite incredibly tough gun restrictions, gun crime is rising. There's a large pool of guns used in crimes that the police can't get rid of, and they're even seeing a rise in the use of zip guns, or home-made firearms.
 
I was sorta thinking of them for keeping little kids from shooting themselves
Click to expand...
I think that educating the kid, telling him that the gun is NOT a toy and if he should ever touch it he is going to get the beating of his life. Either that or keeping the gun in a safe place and unloaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top