Gun Versus Knife. Gun saves life.

A couple funny stories I found in my late night internet boredom.

No way to know how this one would have ended. The sword weilding man might have just walked away after scaring the other guy....But it's very possible the man with the firearm saved his own life.


Spring Hill, Fla. Mar. 2002. An argument between two handicapped men over a hospital parking space escalated when one man whipped out a sword, prompting the other to pull out a gun.

Lee Damron, 48, was arrested for aggravated assault on March 13 for his bizarre and menacing behavior, authorities said. Eyewitnesses in the crowded parking lot of Oak Hill Hospital told police that at about 3 p.m., Damron pulled near a disabled parking space, which was partially blocked by another car. ....

...... Profanities were exchanged, followed by Damron stepping out of the car, holding onto a black cane with a golden snake head. Bystanders looked on with amazement as Damron then unsheathed a sword from the cane and proceeded to approach Cavalier....

...Cavalier immediately pulled out a 9mm handgun from the car and raised it slowly. Damron turned and ran through the hospital's sliding doors. Police were called, and Damron was arrested minutes later. Cavalier was not charged because he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, authorities said. (CourtTV.com).


In this one however, it's fairly obvious the female victim would have certainly been killed had she not used a firearm to defend herself. I sincerely doubt that he was going to stop stabbing her untill she made him...anyways, here's the story


When ne'er-do-well Joey Wayne Fuller, 21, armed himself with a sword and a flashlight and then broke into a Lebanon, Alabama, woman's home, he was unaware he was about to come face-to-face with the homeowner-and his Maker.
After Fuller repeatedly stabbed the resident, she fired two shots, striking him once in the stomach. Fuller and his accomplice, waiting in a car outside, continued the assault by attempting to run down the fleeing woman who let two more shots ring out. Police later found Fuller dead in the lookout's vehicle. (Sand Mountain Reporter, Albertville, AL, 9/21/99)


We just have to ban those terrible guns, that way criminals with swords wont have to fear for their safety, they're just trying to make a living you know, who can fault them for that?

Ah yes...more fun sword tidbits at

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Fringe.htm

Perhaps if everyone had been armed they could have exchanged fire in an amusing way. Perhaps some kiddies could have got comically involved in the cross fire. We could have all shared a good laugh as little Johnny shot his father, brother , sister, friend with his fathers readily accessible defensive weapon.

Yep, death sure is funny.

which is the one i was thinking about, the second one, i added later.

As you'll notice, no one dies in the first one. And in the second one, only scum died. Good shooting and good writtens.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

SPANAWAY -- A 14-year-old boy died yesterday after he was accidentally shot in the head Tuesday at the home of a friend where authorities said live ammunition and firearms were easily found.
Bobby Lott, who lives across the street, said it was a haunting sight when the boy was carried out of the home by emergency workers shortly after he was shot at 4:30 p.m.
"It was just horrible," said Lott, the father of sons age 11, 13 and 14. "He just looked terrible. All I could think of was my kids. I wish I hadn't seen it."

The boy was in critical condition when he was brought to Harborview Medical Center on Tuesday and died yesterday.
No one answered the door yesterday at the home where the boy was shot, in the 1500 block of 154th Street East, although a young boy could be seen peering out a window. Toys littered the driveway and spilled out from under the garage door of the aging split-level house, and several vehicles were parked in its driveway.
The boy's father, through a hospital spokesman, yesterday declined comment on the incident.

Ed Troyer, spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff, said no adults were home when the boy was shot. But three boys, who attend Spanaway Junior High, were present, and several weapons were easily accessible to them, Troyer said.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98554_shot05.shtml

and what does that have to do with firearms being used in self defense?
On a side note, no one is ever accidently shot. They are negligently shot. Guns dont just go off unless they're poorly made. This is a clear cut case of lack of education.

"What 14-year-old boy is going to resist playing with" the rifle? he asked."

Easy. One that doesnt have his head up his ass. Guns are fun, but they aint toys.

LA. GIRL PLAYING PRANK ON PARENTS IS KILLED BY FATHER AFTER JUMPING OUT OF CLOSET, SHE'S SHOT AS 'INTRUDER'
Published on November 9, 1994
Author(s): Associated Press

WEST MONROE, La. -- A girl who jumped out of a closet and shouted ''Boo!'' when her parents came home in the middle of the night was shot and killed by her father. ''I love you, Daddy,'' were 14-year-old Matilda Kaye Crabtree's last words to her father.

-----------------------------------------------

Yup, that was one uneducated father...

Four Rules that have been posted here so often every one should know them by now:

Every Gun is always loaded.

Never Point A Gun At Something You're Not Prepared To Destroy

Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target

and the violation in this case, KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT!


"Yup, that was one uneducated father..."

Least we agree there.

Edit...Ok that was a little rough. I am short today, what can i say. I feel sorry for the family for sure. But the simple fact is that not knowing, or not following the rules meant to keep tragedies like that from happening is nothing less then unacceptable.

If you have access to a gun you may be tempted to use it as your first line of defence. In extremis, judgement can be compromised and you end up with a dead child.

Without a gun what happens?

Depends. In the father/daughter situation, a life would have undoubtedly been saved. In the woman shooting the man trying to stab her to death situation, an innocent life would have been taken. (i sincerely doubt a less lethal means of offense would have saved her)

Sometimes the boogie-man is a 15 year old playing a joke. Sometimes the boogie-man is a criminal intent on doing harm. A father negligently shooting his daughter doesnt warrent taking the most effective means of defense away from people.

Albeit, by the same token, a woman managing to save her life
obviously doesnt warrent putting one of the most effective means of offense into people who shouldnt have them either.

Obviously, we're looking for a balance. I personally feel that looseing some restrictions, while tightening others. (Mandatory training, provided inexpensively for instance.) is the best bet. I also believe for every tragedy involving a gun there are cases where meerly flashing a gun, or hinting that you might have one, avert what could be the worst, and make it a non-incedent.

"The sword that cuts down evil is the sword that gives life"
Much more poetic, but basically means the same as:
"The shotgun that blows criminals across the street is the shotgun that saves your ass"

you may be tempted to use it as your first line of defence."

I dont think this is the case, those I know who do will only draw their weapon as a last resort, or if they feel that they are in immediate danger, as in the case here with the swordsman. If anything, I will go out of my way to avoid a potential situation just because I do have my gun. You look at things in a different light due to the responsibilities that go with carrying that gun. If you do carry a gun, you have the responsibilty to know how, and just, if not more importantly, when to use it. There are levels of threat that you have to work through before deadly force becomes the issue, you just cant pull it out for any little thing. Avoidence of violence is the best thing if possible, but if not, then you should deliberately and diligently do what is necessary to defend yourself to the point of stopping the threat. If this can be done without discharging your weapon, all the better.

Why do people who are not politicans, celebrities, bodyguards, Private Detectives, Secerity gurads, high powered corporate excutives,and billionairs need to carry firearms with all of the non lethal self defence products avalible. I mean if you are a average person with out fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom stalked by a mad person or assasinated or your job requires you to deal with possible armed crminals why in the world would you need a firearm.

People should be allowed to use them and own them at their place of residence to be used agianst intruders but not at the mall or store where hundreds of people would be endanged if it were to go off or you used for self defence bullets go a great distance to great of a distance for self defence when do you need to defend your self from someone a hundrends of yards away and since any would be burglur knows full well people are allowed to use maxim force to save their lives in their homes and since hundres of people do not go in our home everday you would only be endangering you and your family or who ever lives with you. But people exepct to be safe when they go to the store and not have to worry about being shot accidently or on purpose. It is also stupid to risk wrongful death lawsuits and possible charges if some one was killed or injured.

IF a stun gun or mace or other device was used no one would be in fatal danger if it discharged. Plus the owener would be less likely to use in a road rage incident or at a incident with some one at the store.

alternatives to handguns and then your idea is worthy of debate.

In the U.S., citizens have the "inalienable right to defend self and property". SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to defend an individual.

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer’s right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Because citizens as potential victims have the inalienable right to oppose crime, why should they be banned from using the same tools used by those who commit crimes and those who try to solve crimes?

"Why do people who are not politicans, celebrities, bodyguards, Private Detectives, Secerity gurads, high powered corporate excutives,and billionairs need to carry firearms with all of the non lethal self defence products avalible. "

Basically, what you've done is created a class system right off, only certain people can carry firearms. Read your list again, you make it sound like almost only rich people should be allowed to have guns! Are they more important then your average joe? If anything, the super important rich people are the ones that DONT need firearms, because they can afford body guards, unlike us peons.



""I mean if you are a average person with out fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom stalked by a mad person or assasinated or your job requires you to deal with possible armed crminals why in the world would you need a firearm.""

Well, the thing is, average people get kidnapped and held for ransom, stalked, or murdered all the time. Criminals target all classes of people, thats why all classes of people have a right to be armed.
Now, when someone of import is murdered or kidnapped, then you can bet you'll hear all about it in every paper. thats for sure.
However, there are many more common folk that are murdered or the like then there are rich people. While famous people might be bigger targets, "average" people make up 99% of the victims.


It's certainly not very often that someone defending themselves misses and shoots innocents. In fact, i cant think of any incident at all that i have heard of where a CCW holder in a public place missed and shot a bystander, even though the "what if" of it comes up all the time. (By the same token however, the "what if" of a CCW holder preventing a tragedy comes up just as often)

Wait, I take that back. I've heard of one. i think A store owner wounded someone outside his store when shooting at a robber. (or maybe the robber did the wounding, cant recall exactly). So it probably doesnt happen that often.

Now before any antigunners jump in and go AH-HA, SEE! There have been at least two school shootings, that i have heard of, that were cut short when one of the faculty retrieved a firearm from their car and apprehended the shooter. (So for the one example of someone wounding a bystander during a crime there are two incidents where gun owners gut a tragedy short, that i recall)


"But people exepct to be safe when they go to the store and not have to worry about being shot accidently"


Sooo, what you're saying is people would feel better about being shot by a maniac then they would about being shot by a CCW holder trying to stop said maniac?

First of all I don't know of any middle or working class people gettin kidnapped and held for ransom maybe robbed but if people do what I do don't go out at night unless your with a group and carry non lethal protection that can be prevented.

I have no problem with people having guns in their homes that I think everyone should have but when you take the gun to a public place you are endangering the lives of people. I have heard of people simply droping their gun and casueing it to discharge. I think if someone his being stalked or has a contract out on their life then they should be allowed to carry a firearm for a while until the situation is resolved.

Besides we already have a class system in this country look at the special treatment the people mentioned above get under the law, and from business's, resturaunts,clubs and by ordanary people. Which I don't have a problem with and no Iam not a member of the group far from it in fact.

I think at malls and store there should be a law that requires them to have armed trained secerity to protect average people that would solve it.

You're kidding right? What about all the kids that get kidnapped and held for ransom? You dont have to be rich, just middle class is fine, or maybe just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens.


"when you take the gun to a public place you are endangering the lives of people".

Cops carry guns in public all the time, do they carry those magic bullets that only hurt bad guys? No. The average CCW holder isnt endangering anyones lives anymore so then the average cop.


"I have heard of people simply droping their gun and casueing it to discharge"

Yeh, I've heard a lot of these storys to and they sounded beleiveable till i learned a bit more about guns.

For one thing, a properly made firearm (Read, almost ALL modern guns) will not discharge when dropped or abused or otherwise mishandled. They fire when the trigger is pulled. And that is the only time they fire. It's just the nature of their construction, if i take my AR-15 and throw it way up into the air and let it fall, it's not going to go off, it just wont. By the same token, if i take my beretta and slam it into the ground with a chambered round, it still wont go off.

Most semi- auto pistols that are meant for cops and civilians are "double action" at least on the first shot, and ALL revolvers are (the most common type hand gun)
That means that if you have a round loaded and ready to go in the chamber, then by pulling the trigger the gun will first cock itself, then fire. If you have the hammer down on a loaded chamber it's no big deal, you can beat abuse and otherwise mistreat your gun however you wont and it wont go off. It's just physically impossible unless you pull the trigger.


If you're dropping a gun thats cocked with one in the chamber. Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it, most guns have safety features to prevent this. (My friends walther for instance will not fire even if you let the hammer slam down on a loaded chamber due to internal safety mechanisms, he says he has it because it's rated to be one of the safest carry pistols in existence)


I think about 99% of the "I dropped it and it just went off!" excuses you hear are from people who were goofing off when they were alone, shot themselves, and then had to explain how it happened. To avoid looking like a complete idiot they say "I just dropped it!"

It's much like the "well he was cleaning the gun and it just went off". Sounds viable to the untrained. But everyone who knows anything about guns knows you HAVE to unload the chamber to clean it. There's just no way you can "clean" a loaded gun.


" I think if someone his being stalked or has a contract out on their life then they should be allowed to carry a firearm for a while until the situation is resolved. "


Sounds good, I'd support something like that, in this manner. If someone is going through a nasty divorce or the like and fears for their lives but cant afford to buy a gun, or just doesnt want to buy one for the six months or so it takes. They can get an inexpensive government issued .38 revolver for protection on the condition that they go through rigerous training and pass background checks. That way even the poor can protect themselves when they have reason to fear. But i wouldnt use this as a substitution for normal CCW carry. Just in addition to, because you just do not know when you're going to be attacked.


"Besides we already have a class system in this country look at the special treatment the people mentioned above get under the law, and from business's, resturaunts,clubs and by ordanary people. Which I don't have a problem with and no Iam not a member of the group far from it in fact. "

So just because it's already there that makes it ok to further define the classes? That just doesnt make sense in a supposedly classless society. I know theft takes place, and will take place for as long as there are people. But that doesnt mean we should "OK" it just because it's already there.

On a personal note, I am a member of a rather high profile family. I myself am not important in the least, as evidenced by my $10,000 a year job, lol. But, using your example, I could very well be at risk to be kidnapped and ransomed. (In fact, our family did recieve letters threatning something like this when I was in 2nd grade)
So, by your own words, I myself, being in this "high caliber" (no one that knows my aunts and uncles would say that, thats for sure!) family, would be perfectly withen my genetically inherited rights to walk around armed all the time.

However, even though I could make a reasonable case for being allowed to carry a firearm while they disarmed almost all of the citizenry I would much rather have every citizen who is not a convicted criminal allowed to purchase and use firearms in self defense. So i guess you and I cancel eachothers vote out huh? *grins*


"I think at malls and store there should be a law that requires them to have armed trained secerity to protect average people that would solve it."

I think thats a good idea to, it's not a reason to throw out the CCW system, but it would certainly help if there were no CCW holders on the scene. But the problem is the cost of this would be through the roof, armed security is expensive. You have to have a hell of an insurance policy on every one of your guards. It's just to cost prohibitive.

They are ALL "Less Lethal". '

"Non-Lethal" is not.

Stun guns, mace, pepper spray can kill.

Plus...

Stun guns are not 100% effective. Depending on the person and the clothing that person is wearing. PLus depending on the model they are only effective against one, maybe two people.

Mace or Pepper Spray are not 100% effective. Some people seem to be naturally 'immune' or not very affected by these products. Plus you can build up this 'immunity', especially to pepper spray.

And...

All these products are temporary, what I mean is that they simply distract/immobilize your attacker for a brief period of time, if you are unable to escape during that period of time you are in even more trouble.

I suppose a high voltage stun gun might be lethal if used in a pool or a lake . Mace might be lethal if you drank a gallon of it I do not recall a incident that some one died of either but I do recall thoudsands of people dieing of firearm related deaths.

However the point in carrying a firearm is to defend yourself if attacked something a stun gun or mace can do and give a chance to the attacler to turn over a new leaf.

And I don't have anything agianst people who keep guns at their homes but I don't want to worry about some nut with a gun shooting me accidently when I am at a public place. That is why it is a violation of health laws to smoke in public places if you want to endanger your life do it at your home not a public place.

FBI Stats
Classification Year 2001 and Number of Crimes
Murder .......... 15,980
Forcible rape .......... 90,491
Robbery Total .......... 422,921
….. Street/highway .......... 187,291
….. Commercial house .......... 61,060
….. Gas or service station .......... 12,066
….. Convenience store .......... 27,741
….. Residence .......... 53,188 (13%)
….. Bank .......... 10,246
….. Miscellaneous .......... 71,329
Burglary Total .......... 2,109,767
….. Residence (dwelling): .......... 1,376,060 (65%)
….. Nonresidence (store, office, etc.): .......... 733,707

About 87% of robberys and about 35% of burglarys occur outside a residence.

The majority of murders and rapes occur outside a residence.

Given those statistics, the greatest need for self defense is outside a residence. That's why "must issue CCW" laws are important for any citizen who wished to exercise his/her inalienable right to defend self and property.

Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers. Because citizens as potential victims have the inalienable right to oppose crime, why should they be banned from using the same tools used by those who commit crimes and those who try to solve crimes?

All of the above mentioned crimes agianst people and propertiy could be stoped with non lethal devices. Unless you are being robbed, killed, rapped or assualted by an super human being who is immune to non lethal devices then they should protect you as good if not better than a firearm. There are tons of non letheal devices for people to use when they leave home. stun guns,mace,iron pocket size batons, rubber bullet guns,and bright light devices that temporay blind attacker eyes, just to name a few.

Law enforcemnt are useing non lethal devices all the time rubber bullets, stun batons, mace and other stuff as the first line of defence.

People who commit crimes and the people who solve them are in conflict with another crooks break the law and police try to arrest them. If you are just a reqular citizen who is not comiting crime and minds their own business then the gangbanger or crook on the street corner and the cop hot on his trail will leave you along to go about your business. Now if you plan on going after the people who are comiting the crimes then you would proberly need a gun which is why police have them but then taking the law into your own hands is illegal that is the reason we have law enforcement so we don't have to go after the bad guys.

and it is a misnomer to refer to these weapons as such. It leads to people getting a false sense of what these weapons are, and what they are capable of.

Unless you are being robbed, killed, rapped or assualted by an super human being who is immune to non lethal devices then they should protect you as good if not better than a firearm

WRONG!!!!

Naive too.

I guess you would consider me to be a 'super human' because I can operate even after being maced or pepper sprayed. It is actually fairly easy to TEACH and TRAIN people to be able to do so. Granted not everyone can do it, but the majority of the people out there can. All it takes is discipline.

And there is no better weapon for defense than a firearm.

Otherwise the Police/Military would be using them. (see below)

I am not even going to comment on the fact that most of the things you mention that a person could/should carry for self-defense are just as illegal to carry in most areas that a firearm is illegal to carry. And some of them are even considered to be 'lethal weapons' in most jurisdictions.

Law enforcemnt are useing non lethal devices all the time rubber bullets, stun batons, mace and other stuff as the first line of defence.

This is wrong.

A police officer's 'first line of defense' is a firearm. Just as any police officer, what will you go for when your life is in danger your taser or your service pistol?

They do not use less-Lethal devices for 'defense' but rather for subdual in order to make an arrest.

In most states and cities stun guns are legal to own and carry exept and all 50 states allow people to use mace. The only states Iam aware of that is is illegal to own is NY,RI,MA,NJ,WI,HI, but and a dozen of cities. So the majority of people can defend themselves with those devices just as well as a firearm. If defence is the issue then lobby those states and cities that outlaw them to let people carry them to protect themselves. And I don't think anyone could function after being stunned.

With all of the road rage in this world How can anyone think arming people with guns that might later be used in crimes of passions in the heat of the moment could be a good idea. There is alot of people with anger managment issues who if armed would proberly kill someone or shoot there car.

And firearms can be as useless as a water gun if the attacker as a bullet proof vest. Mmmm did anyone think of that.

Stun guns dont work so hot on bullet proof vests either. Or nominally thick clothing for that matter. Plus, how many thugs do you see running around in body armour for cripes sakes? I can think of one high profile shooting, and thats about it.

For starters, if you realize your attacker is wearing body armour (you have a better chance of winning the lottery i'd say) you defeat the armour the same way armour has been defeated for thousands of years, you go for where the armour is not.
Short of being attacked by someone armoured up in full on swat gear (I'd say you have about a good a chance of that as gettin eatin by a shark.....on land) Then there are going to be a TON of exposed spaces. The head, legs, arms, underarms (a classic kill spot for armoured knights btw)

Body armour isnt invincible by a long shot, and I guarentee you a firearm is going to work a lot better then a stungun against it because you're forgetting one very important thing. BLUNT TRAUMA.

Imagine, someone takes a ball peen hammer and slams it into your chest at 900 or more feet per second. It's going to HURT like HELL. Certainly as much as pepper spray or a stungun, probably more.
By all accounts this is what getting shot while wearing body armour feels like. It aint fun.
One saying i kind of like is "Modern armour stops bullets. Not damage". If you put a kevlar vest over a tomato and then shoot the vest, the tomato aint gonna be happy even if the bullet doesnt go through.

To further illustrate, their is a case of a police officer who was shot while wearing body armour. The problem is, he wasnt wearing a trauma plate underneath it. The bullet didnt penetrate the vest, but it pushed the vest into his body as if the bullet had penetrated. The police officer died as a result if this.

No...you see, a statement like a "it would be as useless as a watergun" is a gross miscalculation at best. You're overestimating body armour and underestimating firearms. If you cant hurt someone with a gun, you're not going to have much better success ( and probably a lot less) with stun guns or mace.

On a further note a simple knife, one of the oldest weapons, will zip through a kevlar vest without a problem. An arrow will do the same. It would go through the vest, through the wearer, and out the back. No....body armour isnt as invincible as people like to think, not by a long shot. There was recently of two men fooling around with body armour, where they decided it would be neat for one guy to stab the other on the armour. The knife penetrated the armour and killed the wearer.


Besides, I shoot a rifle, a rather weak one in fact (much weaker then a hunting rifle) and it will penetrate body armour without a problem inside fifty yards, probably even SWAT caliber class IIIA armour.

"AndI don't think anyone could function after being stunned."
Lots of people do, In fact, it's not uncommon for people to function after being shot. One criminal was shot 15 times by police officers and was STILL running away.

In many ways the human body is a lot tougher then people seem to think, albeit in some ways it's a lot weaker then people think aswell.

Stun guns and pepper spray might be "safer" to carry. But they're only safer because they're less effective. Period.

If your attacker is wearing a bullet proof vest or helmet then the option you suggested shoot where there is no vest cover. Well a firearm won't kill someone that fast if they are shot in the arm or leg. Now a stun gun on the other hand paralizes there muscles just as almost as effective if applied to the leg or arm as it would be to a chest thus preventing your attacker from charging you.

Plus if someone is trying to attack you and they have on a vest I don;t think they would have on their outside if their clothing. So chances are you might not know until it is to late. If shot in the arm that would proberly make them mad and more likely to kill you than before you shot them.

How many people haul bows and arrors and large kniefs around or rifles unless their hunting. Rifles are a lot harder to operate than hand guns and since I don't see how a rifle would help and I thinkif a person carrying permit which I don't think allows them to haul a rifle around would help since I assume the police would get called a lot if someone hauled their rifle into shopping malls,stores,and other places. If it a't fun getting shot with bullets while wearing a vest then rubber bullet guns would do just fine in stoping an attacker.

No, a firearm wont kill someone that quick if shot in the leg or arm. However, i think you'd find that having your kneecap blown apart is a hell of a deterent. A firearm IS undoubtedly, lethal force, but it doesnt have to be used lethaly (although, it always should...always aim center of mass, unless you have a reason not to, like body armour)

The thing about a stun gun is though, it wont penetrate clothing of any moderate thickness. You also have to let your attacker get very very close to use it. At that distance to be quite honest, I'd rather just use a knife. If they're close enough to where I can use a stun-gun, then they're close enough to obviously use a knife. Plus, while a stun gun would just fizzle on body armour or thick clothing, a knife will zip right through without a problem.

Plus stun guns are rather un reliable, there are many cases of them not stopping people, like the police tazer example, which is a stun-gun on steroids. They're not near as disabling as people think. They can be effective, but they're just not AS effective.

One more thing about body armour thats been true for millenia. There is a trade off in mobility and concealabilty versus protection, the more mobile and covert you are, the less protection you can have. If armour is thin enough to wear under clothing then at contact ranges it's going to REALLY REALLY hurt to get shot. Enough to be more of a deterent then any stun gun or pepper spray. Plus, multiple shots will often pentrate body armour.

Armour has been used throughout the ages for one reason, not to turn warriors into invincible fighters impervious to weapons. it's used to give you a second chance in CASE you take what would have been a deadly or disabling strike. Armour is meant to give you time to give a chance to counter attack in case your opponent gets in the first shot or strike. Kevlar vests often cant take more then one or two shots in the same approximate area before loosing their effectiveness. The first shot may not kill them, but the second or third one probably will. Especially if it's small and lightweight enough to be concealed. Besides, i can still shoot them in the head, they cant conceal a kevlar helmet you know ;)

"How many people haul bows and arrors and large kniefs around or rifles unless their hunting."

Well, i was just giving examples of things that go through body armour quite easily to give a little bit of context to how it's not as impervious as some think. Since simple melee weapons that are 10 thousand or more years old can defeat it.


" If shot in the arm that would proberly make them mad and more likely to kill you than before you shot them."

Only in the movies. the arm isnt a very big target, but it's chock full of all kinds of bones and tendons and muscles. An arm hit, is very likely disable the arm. Possibly permanantly. I'm not talking about shooting them with a .22 revolver, I am thinking more along the lines of .45 ACP or 9mm or something in between. If you hit meat with a .45, someone is going to be out of the fight.

For the record however, I for one, haul around a decent sized knife all the time. I carry a 6 inch bladed bali-song ("butterfly knife") with me quite frequently. 6 inches isnt that big, but a knife doesnt have to be big to deafeat body armour, a three inch push dagger would be more then sufficent. Thats something you can hide easily in accompanyment to your firearm if you feel inclined.


"Rifles are a lot harder to operate than hand guns and since I don't see how a rifle would help and I thinkif a person carrying permit which I don't think allows them to haul a rifle around would help since I assume the police would get called a lot if someone hauled their rifle into shopping malls,stores,and other places"

Eh, they're more cumbersome then handguns, but they;re much more accurate and like I said, go through armour easily. Now, technically, if you have your CCW, you're not limited to handguns, at least not in tennessee. You dont even have to conceal your firearm, although it's generally a good idea.

While carrying a rifle around would result in the police being called a lot, and a lot of questioning, and a lot of people running the fuck away. Unless you're waving it around in a threatening manner, in my state, it's technically legal to carry. (Besides, I could hide it under my coat, check me out, i'm in the matrix, whoa ;)

"If it a't fun getting shot with bullets while wearing a vest then rubber bullet guns would do just fine in stoping an attacker. "

Not to many criminals are running . The point of a firearm is that it IS lethal force. Just becaround with vests, in fact, you have to pass a background check, and it's hard to get on the black market, and probably quite expensiveause you might get attacked by one person wearing body armour, where your firearm would be less lethal, doesnt mean you have to neuter it all the time with rubber bullets. (Which have a history of being less then effective when the police use them too)

The simple fact is, if there was a better small arms means of defense then a firearm, the military would have issue it to troops instead of m16's (which are still issued to troops, even though the military has grenade launchers and the like at their disposal, i think this speaks to the effectiveness of firearms)

When they come out with star trek style phasers, then maybe the firearm will fade away, but they're not here yet. Even so, every time I've ever watched a movie or show with phaser type weapons, people always seem to manage to recover from them and return fire after crawling around for a while, and i always end up thinking "You know, a plain old gun would probably kill them a whole lot deader then these"energy weapons"seem to ;)

"If shot in the arm that would proberly make them mad and more likely to kill you than before you shot them."

and getting pepper sprayed or hit with a stun gun would make them happy? At the very least, I'd expect a bullet in an arm to cause pretty immediate loss of use of the arm, which would seriously degrade the threat to you unless they were a kickboxer or Mike Tyson when he's hungry.

Regarding people wearing bulletproof vests, there's an old saying. "two in the chest and one in the head always leaves the subject dead". I'd think that if a person kept advancing when shot in the chest, most people would pick another part of the body to shoot at.

They are properly known as 'bullet resistent' or 'body armor'.

If you think getting shot while wearing one is the same as getting hit with a water gun, you are a fool. And that is even if you are lucky and the vest actually stops the bullet instead of just slowing it down.

And I don't think anyone could function after being stunned.

It all depends. If the person is wearing certain clothing (some clothing is less conductive) then they may not get 'stunned', or the severity of the 'stun' may be much less.

Plus the 'stun' is of a very short duration in even optimal situations, and once the current is removed people can recover surprisingly quick.

Cops would not use bullet proof vests if they did not work. And I know of nohting other than rubbber that might prevent you from getting stunned badily. The point in a firearm is to inflict death or injury and if it can't do that then it is no good if you shot at some one behind a bullet proof glass with a water gun and firearm then it would be the same. Perhaps I used a poor choice in words.

Cops would not use bullet proof vests if they did not work.

Well then I guess since no cop uses a 'bullet proof' vest they do not work.

That is why police wear bullet resistent body armor. And most of the vests out there being used by police are only rated for small caliber pistol rounds.

And I know of nohting other than rubbber that might prevent you from getting stunned badily.

Rubber is not the only non-conductive material out there, there are alot of other materiels that perform well. The point is that you do not have to totally stop the current, just a portion of it, to have the 'stun gun' become an ineffective (as compared to it being a marginally effective) tool for self defense. The further away from the CNS (Central Nervous System) you get the more current it takes to 'stun' someone. If the clothing the person is wearing is defeating a portion of the current, and the stun gun is not on the Upper Torso, then it becomes more probable that the current will not cross the 'stun' threshold and cause the assailent to be stunned.

The point in a firearm is to inflict death or injury and if it can't do that then it is no good if you shot at some one behind a bullet proof glass with a water gun and firearm then it would be the same.

Yes, the point to using firearms in self-defense is to inflict death upon the attacker. You should never attempt to mearly 'injure' an attacker. Every shot you take should be to stop an emminent threat to your life, if there is no threat then you are in the wrong to take the shot. The same threshold exists if you choose to use a 'less lethal' device.

And if your attacker is behind 'bullet proof' (more mislabeling, there is no such thing as bullet proof glass) glass then you shouldnt have to worry much about them attacking you should you?

If you watch the news you know there is a class that defects bullets used it taxi cabs some gas stations in high crime areas. I belevie they also said the white house as bullet proof class on the news. Famous people have them in their mansions. some cars have them so I don't know where you get your infomation from but the planet Iam on I hear that mentioned frequently and have seen it.

The REAL one.

Not the one created by hollywood, or ignorant newscasters and reporters.

There is no such thing as 'bullet proof'. All the 'glass' used in ALL the situations you mentioned is properly and accurately called 'bullet resistent', not 'bullet proof'.

Only those ignorant in what it truly is or those attempting to spread dishonesty refer it as 'bullet proof'.

it's Lexan. It's very, very thick, and yet repeated hits will cause it to fail. Hell, if there was true bulletproof "class", don't you think the army would make tanks out of it?

"And I know of nohting other than rubbber that might prevent you from getting stunned badily."

try having on a heavy leather jacket, a heavy sweater, and a shirt. Stun guns routinely fail against people wearing exactly that. Also, any kind of metallicized fabric (like a shiny gold blouse, or a zipper or jewelry if that's where the stun gun hits) will also prevent a stun gun from shocking you. Electrical current, after all, takes the easiest path.

I hope you are not a victim but I've been one and a handgun was enough to settle the issue in my favor.

You choose your tool, but I'll exercise my inalienable right to defend self by keeping and bearing a handgun.

There are several amusing stories, and some that arent. I really love the one about the theif who, when trying to run away, impaled himself on a sword weilding statue called "The sword of justice". How ironic. dont cast pearls to swine, and dont cry for parasites. That guy, and the guy who was shot, both got exactly what they were asking for.

Mankind has been "riddled with violence" ever since the beginning of time. This is hardly a modern thing... Sometimes there's a lighter side to crime. If you dont find some asshole threatening someone with a sword over a parking space getting "one upped", oh well, I do.
They argued, one guy turned violent, the other took the situation firmly in hand and sent the other guy packing, and no one got hurt (except for an ego)

You can be an emotional cry baby and weep over "societies riddled with violence" or you can laugh at the lighter side of things. Your call. But i wont be loosing any sleep over anyone who goes looking for trouble and gets just that ;)

I agree, but it doesnt look like the person with the gun initiated it though, and its mere presence stopped it without anyone being hurt. Violence is a fact of life, especially if you live in an area that is prone to it, you will never change this. Someone will always take advantage of someone who is weaker for their own gain and gratification. No matter what you ban, there are those who will disobey your rules and do as they wish(sword canes are illegal in most jurisdictions, by the way). If you want to stop the violence you need to change the people, not what they use.

So we should stigmatise violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive.

Additionally restricting access to tools most suited to inflicting violence may help.

Neither will happen in this society.

"So we should stigmatise violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive."

Turning the other cheek is another way of saying "hit me harder this time". Defense should never be looked upon as unsavory. There are always, always, always, going to be people that prey upon others. Nothing, barring the complete and total destruction of humanity as we know it, will change this.

One of the first rules of martial arts is to avoid violence whenever possible, but still knowing when it's appropriette and in what doseage.
Self defense is not a bad thing. The guy possibly saved his own hyde by doing what he did, and the agressor will probably think twice before pulling anything like that again.

Standing up to bullys is the only way to make them stop. Thats exactly what happened here.

Statement A: "So we should stigmatise violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive."

Statement B: "Turning the other cheek is another way of saying 'hit me harder this time'."

What does statement B have to do with statement A?


Statement C: "Self defense is not a bad thing."

What does statement C have to do with statement A?


Statement D: "Standing up to bullys is the only way to make them stop."

What does statement D have to do with statement A?


Just wondering, as usual.

B has nothing to do with A. It's my own insertion. See the thing is, you're allowed to introduce new points into discussions. You're not limited to direct replys. It's easy.

"Defense should never be looked upon as unsavory"

Has everything to do with A.

"What does statement C have to do with statement A?"

Did you even read statement A?
"we should stigmatize violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive"

Stigmatize: To characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious.


"What does statement D have to do with statement A?"

D has nothing to do with A either, it's a continuation on my opening remark. Once again, introducing a new view, rather then just direct replys. You know, thats how people talk.

Anyways, That was the most pointless exercise ever. If you're going to try and take things out of context, then make it good for cripes sakes.

Lemme repeat it for you:

Statement A: "So we should stigmatise violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive."

Statement B: "Turning the other cheek is another way of saying 'hit me harder this time'."

What does statement B have to do with statement A?

I can answer it for you, if you like. The answer is: NOTHING.

Statement "A" WAS NOT a statement that was in any way about "turning the other cheek". Statement "B" WAS a statement in response to statement "A" by someone trying to make it look like (or under the sadly and incompetently foolish impression that) statement "A" WAS a statement about "turning the other cheek" when it WAS NOT.

D has nothing to do with A either, it's a continuation
in my opening remark. Once again, introducing a new view,
rather then just direct replys. You know, thats how people talk.

Mmm, no.

Responding to what someone said by saying something totally unrelated to what s/he said is NOT how NORMAL people -- sincere, honest people who are genuinely interested in understanding each other's views and making their own views understood -- talk.

Neither is it how normal people talk to respond to what someone said in such a way as might persuade the listener that what that person had said was something that s/he had NOT said.

.

You over analyze everything. This is why I try to avoid responding to your posts. You inevitably wind up taking things out of context and make me explain every sentance down to the letter and it gets to be to time consuming.

I already said B HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A.
It is just an opinion of mine, thats it, thats all.

Maybe thats not how people YOU know talk, but lots of people I know do. You're not limited to saying things that are direct replys.

Geez. I feel like i am trying to explain myself to a computer so i think i'll just stop.

It would be like stigmatizing sex.

Certanly there are quite a few rapes (any is too many) but why reproduce soley via test-tube to solve that problem? Or criminalize consentual sexual contact?

We sadly have just enough chimpanzee in our genes (and nural wireing) that we cannot collectively subugate this part of our nature.

The solution is to channel violent impulses into social acceptable venues such as paintball, SCA, amature tackle football or martial arts (the variaty used in competations).

"Problem is violence is intrinsicaly part of the human condition...
It would be like stigmatizing sex."

How about: pooping in public? Pooping when you feel like it is instrinsically part of the human condition, eh? We've successfully stigmatized it to the point that people don't do it in public, I'd say.

"Taking stuff you want" seems to be pretty intrinsic, too. And yet we have managed to stigmatize it to the point that we don't all walk around taking whatever stuff we want wherever we've found it without asking permission or paying for it, eh?

Surely you are not seriously suggesting that society should not AND DOES NOT stigmatize violence??

Might you think that perhaps the question is one of the degree to which violence is successfully stigmatized?

Surely you're not suggesting that the fact that something is difficult to stigmatize to the extent that NO ONE engages in it makes it incorrect to attempt to stigmatize it to an extent that protects society and its members from the effect of it to a very large extent?

Sure, some people poop in public, and some people take stuff that isn't theirs. Perhaps we should just not bother stigmatizing any behaviour at all, since we're never going to eliminate the behaviour ...

My point is that certan sociopathic impulses should be channeled into less harmful arenas. For instance, No.2 aught to be deposited down the nearest flush toilet (anyone who hasn't learned it by 6 needs medical examination).

And rampant theft and banditry are also channaeble. That is why the Romans were famous for their "bread and circus." I am not saying that bloodsports are perticulary enlightened but they did seem to keep the populace suficently ammused so as not to riot.

I believe that for dramatic effect you misenterperated "Problem is violence is intrinsicaly part of the human condition... It would be like stigmatizing sex." by saying Surely you are not seriously suggesting that society should not AND DOES NOT stigmatize violence?? But you are right I should have put healthy sexual activity wherin everyone both is capable of and gives informed concent between stigmatizing and sex.

You are absolutely correct in sugesting that voilence should be stigmatized to the extent wherein most people are protected from it. Just as non-consentual sexual contact should be stigmatized but not healthy consentual sex.

Of cource part of that stigmatization should be to resist such violent episodes on both a individual and socital basis.

is that you might benefit from learning something that would assist you in knowing what you're talking about.

"And rampant theft and banditry are also channaeble.
That is why the Romans were famous for their 'bread
and circus.' I am not saying that bloodsports are
perticulary enlightened but they did seem to keep
the populace suficently ammused so as not to riot."

I've seldom read such senseless twaddle in my life. Forgive me if that is a tad hyperbolic, of course.

If you considered acquiring a bit of post-secondary education in the behavioural sciences, or history, or much of anything at all, or even reading something besides equally uninformed and self-interested people's opinions, you would do yourself and others a favour.

"But you are right I should have put healthy sexual activity
wherin everyone both is capable of and gives informed concent
between stigmatizing and sex."

So then we would have:

Stigmatizing violence is like stigmatizing healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent.
(Cleaning up the problematic composition a little.)

Yeah, that makes sense. Not. Not unless you think that there is some sort of similarity between violence and healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent. You'll forgive my saying that I don't happen to think there is.

Let me take a stab at it for you.

Stigmatizing violence which is not demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb is like stigmatizing healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent.

Do you think that the first bit of that -- Stigmatizing violence which is not demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb -- might reasonably have been inferred to be pretty much what the initial assertion actually meant?

"You are absolutely correct in sugesting that voilence
should be stigmatized to the extent wherein most people
are protected from it. Just as non-consentual sexual contact
should be stigmatized but not healthy consentual sex.

Tiresome, tiresome, tiresome. You are persisting in trying to equate "violence" and "sexual activity", and you just can't do it.

What is your equation: "consensual violence" and "consensual sexual activity"??

There is no equation. Non-consensual sexual activity **IS** violence. It has no more to do with consensual sexual activity than "force-feeding" has to do with "eating", or "imprisonment under house arrest" has to do with "staying home for the evening and watching TV". And any attempt to suggest a relationship between the two is nothing short of extremely offensively false.

"Of cource part of that stigmatization should be to resist such
violent episodes on both a individual and socital basis."

Yes indeedy. And, where counter-violence is not demonstrably necessary in order to preserve life or limb, violence **IS** resisted by the individual calling the police, and the society charging, trying, convicting and sentencing the violent individual.

.

Stigmatizing violence which is not demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb is like stigmatizing healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent. Is NOT what I meant.

This is: Stigmatizing violence which is demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb is like stigmatizing healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent. Both are necessary for the survival of civilization. Much better.

Violence is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. Violence is a legatamate means of perserving one's life, health, and property (with strict limitations).

"Counter violence" as you call it is an excelent way to stay alive. I perfer to call it "self defence." From where I live in Subruban Maryland, I doubt that if I called the poliece that they would arrive within anything less than 5 minutes, during which time my atacker would have plenty of time to impose his will on me. Certanly calling the poliece is a good idea, its just somthing to do when one is not threatened by immenent physical harm.

"This is <what you meant>: Stigmatizing violence which is demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb is like stigmatizing healthy sexual activity wherein everyone both is capable of and gives informed consent. Both are necessary for the survival of civilization. Much better."

What you'll be needing to do now is find someone who actually suggested that "violence which is demonstrably necessary for the preservation of one's own or others' life or limb" should be stigmatized. Ya think? Since neither I nor anyone I noticed had said any such thing, you seem to have been left point-less.


"From where I live in Subruban Maryland, I doubt that if I called the poliece that they would arrive within anything less than 5 minutes, during which time my atacker would have plenty of time to impose his will on me. Certanly calling the poliece is a good idea, its just somthing to do when one is not threatened by immenent physical harm."

Do feel free to read what has actually been said on this subject here, including, of course, the bits where *I*, for instance, have NEVER SUGGESTED that anyone who reasonably believes that there is no other way to avoid the death or grievous bodily injury which s/he reasonably apprehends is about to occur was not JUSTIFIED in using force in self-defence.

Read that the other way, and you will conclude that I share the consensus in most societies that someone who reasonably believes that there is no other way to avoid the death or grievous bodily injury which s/he reasonably apprehends is about to occur IS JUSTIFIED in using force in self-defence.

Remove any one of the underlined bits from that equation, and what you have is someone who IS NOT JUSTIFIED in using force in self-defence. And that just ain't just my opinion. So whether you live in suburban Maryland or Outer Mongolia, you DO leave the vicinity (and call the police if you like) where that is possible rather than use counter-violence, unless you prefer to break the law. And doing otherwise very definitely SHOULD be stigmatized, because doing otherwise -- using violence where it is not NECESSARY -- is just plain old criminal behaviour.

Stigmatize violence -- which we of course DO -- and we are likely to have fewer people using force against others when it is not justified -- whether they initiate the use of force or respond to force with force. The obvious point is that we can do a better job than we now do.

And, obviously, stigma alone won't completely deter the use of violence. There are many causes that need to be acted on.

"Certanly calling the poliece is a good idea, its just somthing to do when one is not threatened by immenent physical harm."

Mm hmm. And perhaps we can agree that, say, "using counter-violence is a good idea, it's just NOT something to do when one is NOT threatened by imminent physical harm". I mean, that is what the law says, and what I have said.

.

"So whether you live in suburban Maryland or Outer Mongolia, you DO leave the vicinity (and call the police if you like) where that is possible rather than use counter-violence, unless you prefer to break the law. And doing otherwise very definitely SHOULD be stigmatized, because doing otherwise -- using violence where it is not NECESSARY -- is just plain old criminal behaviour."

to run away?

Laws obviously vary from area to area, but here, a person isn't obligated to flee a potentially dangerous situation. If they were, everybody else would have to get off the highway whenever I drive. There's a song about this...

"Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--

(interlude)

Brave Sir Robin ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin.

(interlude)

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge."

"Laws obviously vary from area to area, but here, a person isn't obligated to flee a potentially dangerous situation."

NO ONE is talking about "a potentially dangerous situation".

**I** have said NOTHING about "a potentially dangerous situation".

DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME AS HAVING SAID SOMETHING I HAVE NOT SAID.

The issue in this discussion is THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENCE.

If you wish to refer to a law concerning THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENCE, kindly DO SO.

If you assert that your law DOES not require that someone "run away" from assault, i.e. PROHIBITS RETALIATION while allowing self-defence, feel quite free to prove your assertion.

If you belief that your law SHOULD not require that someone "run away" from assault, i.e. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT RETALIATION, feel quite free to offer up some reason for your belief.

That is, in fact, what I have asked that someone -- anyone -- do.

NOTHING you have said in your post is of the slightest relevance to anything. NOTHING you have said in your post indicates that you have any intention of engaging in bona fide discussion of any issue.

All I see is more adolescent narcissism. The real world finds that simply boring.

.

you CAN'T be this grumpy normally, even in Canada.

Just for your information, in most jurisdictions in the US a person isn't obligated to flee from an attacker unless the victim provoked the attack by doing something like throwing the first punch or breaking into another person's house. Yes, Indeedy, the obligation to flee from an attacker is the minority rule in the US....and it's a pretty damned SMALL minority rule. Some jurisdictions even allow lethal use of force to defend property (Texas being the prime example).

And frankly, I don't care even a thin half-cent how y'all do things in Canada...Canada ain't the US, Thank Cthulu!!!

If you want proof, hit the secondary legal resources for the US. I'm sure the work's been done, you just have to find it.

"Just for your information, in most jurisdictions in the US a person isn't obligated to flee from an attacker unless the victim provoked the attack by doing something like throwing the first punch or breaking into another person's house."

Sorry, that isn't information.

That's more yammering.

I ask for someone to cite a law, and a whole bunch of people just keep on telling me what they want me to believe the law says, without offering me any reason to believe what they are telling me.

Well, kiddo, the moon is made of green cheese.

"Some jurisdictions even allow lethal use of force to defend property (Texas being the prime example)."

So many people so obviously think that other people are as uninformed and dim as themselves, that they must continue to tell people things they already know.

"And frankly, I don't care even a thin half-cent how y'all do things in Canada...Canada ain't the US, Thank Cthulu!!!"

And I know how completely impossible it will be for such a xenophobic ethnocentric sort to grasp the concept ... but I care about as much about how anybody does anything in Texas. (Unlike what I would expect of you vis-à-vis Canada -- I've been to Texas, more than I'd like.)

None of that has anything to do with anything, of course, since I've already addressed the "defence of property" situation and you're just the latest one to ignore what I've said.

You feel free, now, to find my post in which I cite and reproduce the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution and ask for an explanation of how allowing homicide (or even allowing the causing of bodily harm) in defence of property does not violate the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process. Or just look them up for your own self and answer the question.

The next question was to explain to me how permitting homicide (or even permitting the causing of bodily harm) in defence of property differs from allowing lynch mobs to ply their trade with impunity.

You keep yammering pointless noise; I'll just keep asking the questions nobody will answer.

"If you want proof, hit the secondary legal resources for the US. I'm sure the work's been done, you just have to find it."

'Tain't how it works, honey child. You make the assertion, you offer up the evidence to prove it. Not that it's my job to instruct you in how to engage in discourse concerning a public policy issue or anything else. It's just that your educational system and society seem to have failed y'all so miserably on that count, I find myself having to offer these free lessons.

.

read the self-defense link here: http://public.findlaw.com/criminal/nolo/ency/F7D2015C-DDD4-494B-B7B9D6D6D9FAC218.html


If you want to read an actual statute, peruse §18.2-32 of the Code of Virginia (annotated). Or, you could look at Arizona's §13.404, which states:

"A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. "

Or, you could check out Delaware's self defense laws at http://198.187.128.12/delaware/lpext.dll/Infobase/f495/f4c7/f6a2/f760?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_11464

which state:

"(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.

(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed."


Do you need more?


"So many people so obviously think that other people are as uninformed and dim as themselves, that they must continue to tell people things they already know."

Nope, those many people are probably just hoping that certain unspecified and generic people actually do something terribly out of character, like opening their minds to different legal structures, instead of clinging to the obviously threadbare idea that the laws in their pissant little third-world backwaters from which they were spawned are representative of all laws everywhere.

"pissant little third-world backwaters"

Watch yourself there. Or we'll degenerate back to calling others redneck knuckle dragging gun huggers.

was phrased in a most generic way, not mentioning specific posters or specific countries. Surely SOME country out there must qualify as a pissant little third-world backwater, right? (Western Sahara is the first one that springs to mind...) I leave it to the people in other countries to determine if their country qualifies as that, and therefore if the comment applies to them.

You'll note I used the same tactic.

However, the intent is obvious.

... where the hell said redneck etc.s might think that they got their precious laws from in the first place.

Of course, one might also wonder why anyone at all wouldn't want to open his/her mind to the approaches taken in different jurisdictions to the same problem, on the theory that no jurisdiction's laws result from divine revelation and something just might be learned from how things are worked out elsewhere.

I mean, one might even consider the dates when slavery (which was a mere minor phenomenon in the history of some people's countries) was legislatively abolished in some other jurisdictions, for just one example of what might usefully have been considered by people in one jurisdiction in particular at one point in history.

But to return to our sheep, what we might actually wonder in this instance is what our interlocutor might think that s/he has actually proved by citing what s/he has cited. I don't see anything in that large block of prose that is really any different from anything *I* have been saying all along.

Step one:
quote something.

Step two:
demonstrate how the thing one has quoted supports what one is using it to prove.

Just one more of the free lessons generously offered to those whose society seems to have failed them. Along with your "civil gets as civil gives" reminder.

.

that we got the basis of our laws from English common law. Said redneck might also point out that we took the good parts, and ditched the elitist crap which is still good law in some places at the same time we drove the Crown's ass out of our country at the point of a proverbial bayonet. Said redneck might also point out that some people in other countries are starting to realize that part of their laws do well and truly suck. Said redneck might offer the current hullabaloo in England about a farmer who shot two intruders in his home, killing one and wounding the other, and who was recently released from prison to be put under constant police protection because one of his victim's family had sworn a blood feud, and supposedly put a contract out on his life as a prime example.

He was judged by his peers and found guilty of murder. He shot a 16 yr old in the back as he ran away. His last words were "please mum! No don't". Appeal courts reduced the sentence to manslaughter.

How is the law to blame for Mr Martins predicamnet? Perhaps if he didn't shoot 16 yr olds he'd not be in fear of his life? Is the law wrong or was Martin?

from the criminals. If a criminal knew that he was likely to face an armed homeowner who would be within his rights to shoot the criminal for being in his house in the middle of the night, don't you think that the criminal might SERIOUSLY reconsider being there in the first place when the homeowner is there?

How else would you explain the polar opposites of "cold" and "hot" burglaries between the US and England? (In case you're not aware of it, most burglars in the US try very hard to make sure that they are breaking into an unoccupied structure, while many english criminals don't seem to care.)

what this, or your immediately preceding post in this line, have anything to do with anything at all. And of course what substantiation someone might have for his/her ongoing unsubstantiated allegations about this and that matters of *fact*. Talk about yr "ranting" ...

Oh, btw, it is my understanding from a passing glance in this forum that the "blood feud" nonsense really is nonsense. Do you know otherwise?

Now, to a pertinent question.

Is what you are saying that a homeowner should be permitted by the law to shoot an unarmed 16-year-old in the back as said 16-yr-old retreats from the property s/he was apparently/allegedly attempting to steal from?

Just curious. If that is what you're saying, can you find a law in one of those USAmerican jurisdictions that says it too? Or would this just be some matter of personal "opinion" that is inconsistent with the "opinion" on which various societies have reached consensus and which they have set out in their laws?

C'mon. In Texas, does the law permit a householder to shoot a retreating, unarmed 16-yr-old in the back after a burglary attempt has been foiled, and face no charges for doing so? Chapter and verse, if you please.

And if it doesn't and you think it should, fact and argument in support, if you please.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how such a law does/would differ from lynch mob practices ...

.

"Oh, btw, it is my understanding from a passing glance in this forum that the "blood feud" nonsense really is nonsense. Do you know otherwise?"

The blood feud and bounty put on his head have been widely reported in the English press. Are they all making it up?

"Is what you are saying that a homeowner should be permitted by the law to shoot an unarmed 16-year-old in the back as said 16-yr-old retreats from the property s/he was apparently/allegedly attempting to steal from?"

Close, but not quite. If he wasn't shot in the back, then I'd have no problem with it. The fact that he WAS shot in the back throws some doubt on the situation.

"C'mon. In Texas, does the law permit a householder to shoot a retreating, unarmed 16-yr-old in the back after a burglary attempt has been foiled, and face no charges for doing so?"

In certain circumstances involving the theft of property, shooting a fleeing felon in the back is legal, even if the felon is unarmed. He might be charged, but the law is on his side.

"And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how such a law does/would differ from lynch mob practices ..."

It differs from a lynch mob in that it's an immediate reaction to a situation, instead of an after-the-fact event. If you shoot him right away, during the commission of the crime, it's legal. If you round up a bunch of people and go to his house 4 hours later and shoot him, it's murder.

"It differs from a lynch mob in that it's
an immediate reaction to a situation, instead
of an after-the-fact event."

I differ from you in that, oh, I have a few more years of education than you. And the relevance of this distinction for the purposes of, oh, whether one of us may run the other down with a car is ... ?

You see? Some distinctions are *relevant*. Some are "distinctions without a difference".

When it comes to the right to life and not to be deprived thereof except by due process, I'm seeing one of the latter in your little example.

The REAL distinction that is made in the case of the REAL self-defence justification is that the person who is killed or injured is presenting a serious and immediate threat of death or injury to the person who kills him/her.

THAT is both a distinction and a difference. It is *relevant* to the question of whether someone who kills someone else should be punished for doing so. Whether the retaliatory death or injury is caused a nanosecond after the initial assault, or 3 years later, is of absolutely no relevance to whether it falls with the self-defence exception, if it does not meet the requirements for that justification. (In fact, you may be aware that in some cases a death or injury caused long after the initial assault *does* fall within the self-defence justification exception.)

We, the big us, all us human beings in our groups, believe that someone who reasonably believes that s/he is about to be killed or seriously injured and that there is no other way to avoid death or serious injury should not be punished for doing what was necessary in order to avoid death or serious injury at the hands of the person whom s/he kills or injures.

This is a tiny, narrow, strictly interpreted exception to the prohibition on using force to kill or injure others.

Your fleeing felon scenario, or standing-still-facing-frontwards felon scenario, DOES NOT come within that exception.

Whether or not YOU "have no problems with" killing the person in those scenarios really just isn't a matter of much public interest.

"In certain circumstances involving the theft of property,
shooting a fleeing felon in the back is legal, even if the felon
is unarmed. He might be charged, but the law is on his side."

And have I seen this law? And are we satisfied that it meets the constitutional requirement that the right to life and not to be deprived thereof except by due process not be violated?

"If you shoot him right away, during the commission of the crime,
it's legal."

Sez you?

And as far as this alleged blood feud in the UK, all I have to say is that anyone who acted in furtherance of it by using force against someone who was not presenting one of those immediate threats of death or injury would be committing a crime. Seems like a pretty bright red herring, to me.

.

"I differ from you in that, oh, I have a few more years of education than you. "

I doubt it. I also finished 5th grade, and went beyond it. Don't assume what you don't know.

"When it comes to the right to life and not to be deprived thereof except by due process, I'm seeing one of the latter in your little example."

Ah. But isn't the deprivation of life without due process unconstitutional ONLY when it's done as a function of governmental action? Doesn't the original Bill of Rights (where the right to due process is first enshrined) ONLY apply to governmental action? It certainly does in the 14th, where STATE actors are specifically included in the prohibition ("nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") It surely doesn't say that about INDIVIDUALS, does it? Or are you quoting another CANADIAN interpretation that's completely unfounded on US Jurisprudence?

"And have I seen this law? And are we satisfied that it meets the constitutional requirement that the right to life and not to be deprived thereof except by due process not be violated?"

check out §9.42 at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=DTYXHYUGRCFB&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=126795&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

It says:

"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."

"Sez you?"

Did you learn that rhetorical device in Law School? That's spiffy...I'll have to remember that argument. Ohhh!!! I bet I know what your next argument's going to be....Let me guess... "Your Momma!" Am I right??? ;-)

And I'm genuinely curious.

"Ah. But isn't the deprivation of life without due process
unconstitutional ONLY when it's done as a function of governmental
action? Doesn't the original Bill of Rights (where the right to
due process is first enshrined) ONLY apply to governmental ction?
It certainly does in the 14th, where STATE actors are specifically
included in the prohibition ("nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
It surely doesn't say that about INDIVIDUALS, does it?"

But first, why do you ask that last question? Did I somewhere say that the constitution DID apply to individuals? I don't think so.

So, satisfy my curiosity.

If a state law provided that it was prohibited to kill able-bodied, white, adult males, but did not prohibit the killing of anyone else (now remember, "that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted"), would this be constitutionally valid law? It would not be a denial of the right to life without due process?

Perhaps you will see the reason for my question. Perhaps you won't "see" the reason for my question.

"Or are you quoting another CANADIAN interpretation that's
completely unfounded on US Jurisprudence?"

You would have been correct if what you had said is that Canadian constitutional rights are broader and that individuals are given more enforceable protection than the roughly equivalent rights are in the US. (And yes, I'm quite aware of the differences between the 5th and 14th amendments.) I don't for the life of me know why anyone wouldn't think that such broader, more enforceable protection of individual rights was a good thing, but that's neither here nor there.

What I'm atually struggling to get an answer to is how an exception to the legislative prohibition on killing or injuring other people, where such death or injury is not IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to PROTECT ONE'S SELF from death or injury, would not constitute a violation of the rights afforded by the US constitution.

Any time that someone wants to address his/her mind to that question, I'll be here. Right now, I have to go do a top-secret kind of delivery, if you'll all kindly be suitably impressed and excuse me.

As for that defence-of-property thingy, I've responded to it elsewhere.

.

"If a state law provided that it was prohibited to kill able-bodied, white, adult males, but did not prohibit the killing of anyone else (now remember, "that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted"), would this be constitutionally valid law? It would not be a denial of the right to life without due process?"

Odds are good that the prohibited gender, race, and age categories would be struck down, leaving it legal to kill anybody. The basis for this would be conflict of law, with the Federal law assuming supremacy over state law.

"I don't for the life of me know why anyone wouldn't think that such broader, more enforceable protection of individual rights was a good thing"

It depends on whose rights are being protected, and at the expense of whose rights. I support the rights of victims over the rights of criminals when being dealt with by non governmental actors. Now if the Government is involved, targeting an individual, I support the individual over the government, unless there's a damned good reason to support the government.

"What I'm atually struggling to get an answer to is how an exception to the legislative prohibition on killing or injuring other people, where such death or injury is not IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to PROTECT ONE'S SELF from death or injury, would not constitute a violation of the rights afforded by the US constitution."

It's a matter of defining "immediately necessary". Your definition is in sync with the (very small) minority rule in the US. My definition is in sync with the (much larger) majority rule in the US. I bet you're glad you live in Canada, eh?

And here I thought it was the nudity that was illegal, and that people were free to poop in their pants or skirt whenever they wanted to. I've seen lots of people poop in public, but then I hang around with lots of kids.

BTW, ever seen sales figures for Depends undergarments? (Insert Bob Dole joke here ;-) )

"When Bob Dole was campaigning for President, a journalist from MTV presented him with the question "Boxers or Briefs?", to which he replied "Depends"." (Rim-shot!)

I love happy endings.

The tale was told here recently of some public personality in Washington, DC, who began carrying a handgun in her purse after she and her husband were mugged on the street. I believe that what happened is that the robber whacked her husband over the head with a 2x4, and then stole their stuff.

Now, let's assume that the woman had been carrying a handgun in her purse at the time. How does the scenario play out then?

As far as I can imagine, it would go pretty much the same to start with: robber whacks husband over head with 2x4. Then our heroine pulls out her handgun, and the would-be robber runs off without taking their stuff.

Or she shoots him. We have perfect hindsight in this case; we know that, because she could have avoided further harm to anyone, herself and her husband as well as the robber, by simply handing over their stuff, such a shooting would *not* have been "self-defence", it would have been an assault (or homicide), because it would *not* have been necessary (or even perceived by her as necessary) in order to avoid serious injury or death.

So just exactly how would this have amounted to the use of a firearm in self-defence? The assault on her husband would NOT have been prevented. It had already happened. The important crime here (in terms both of what we most want to prevent and of what people are entitled to do violence to other people in order to prevent) -- the assault on her husband -- would have occurred, firearm in her purse or no firearm in her purse.

And if, once that assault had occurred, she had then reached for her firearm, is it not rather likely that the assaillant would have whacked her too? I know, I know; she should have had that firearm on her hip, or hey, why not just in her hand as she strolled down the sidewalk? Surely seeing that firearm in her hand is going to deter someone from whacking her over the head from behind with a 2x4, no?

Rhetorical question, really. If I were looking to whack someone over the head from behind with a 2x4, I don't think I'd care too much what s/he had in his/her hand. And y'know ... I might just pick the person with the firearm in his/her hand to do it to, if I happened to be wanting a firearm.


Risk is part of life. When you walk down the sidewalk, you run the risk that someone in a car will jump the curb and kill you, or someone will drop a piano on your head and kill you, or you will slip on a banana peel and die ... or someone will whack you over the head with a 2x4.

We reasonably attempt to reduce risks. We make rules about the doing of things that involve risks for other people and impose penalties for breaking them. And we punish people who intentionally harm other people, as a way of reducing the risk to all of us that someone will intentionally harm us.

Some -- a very few -- risks, we can undoubtedly eliminate. We cannot eliminate all risks. In the case of most risks, even if we could eliminate them, it would be at a cost that we are not prepared to accept. The question will always be what that cost is, and whether we should accept it.

What is offensive, intellectually and socially, is pretending that any risk is other than what it is. A kid dies from the negligent or stupid or criminal use of a firearm against or by the kid, and that risk is defined away as "somebody didn't follow the rules".

Well, the risk that someone would not follow the rules IS A RISK like any other risk. It is a known risk, the consequences of the risk materializing are known to be horrific, and measures are available to reduce that risk.

What are the costs of those measures? And are those costs acceptable to us? Those are the questions that need to be addressed.

Would someone who pulled a sword against the foe in a parking-spot dispute likely have run the foe through without further provocation? Was it necessary to brandish a firearm in order to avoid personal injury by sword? Forgive me if I think NOT. So what we really have here is a firearm being used, not in self-defence, but to escalate a fight over a parking space, which could easily have been resolved by driving away.

That would have meant losing the parking space, and the dispute over it. But it is what we require people to do when any dispute turns violent: WALK AWAY. That is the RULE that we apply to reduce the risk of anyone being injured or killed, because THAT is a risk that we take great pains to reduce. You lose a parking space, you lose face, you lose your stereo -- I don't care, and a civilized society doesn't care, when the alternative is for someone to lose his/her life or limb.

From elsewhere in this post:

"So we should stigmatise violent behaviour whether offensive or defensive."

"Turning the other cheek is another way of saying 'hit me harder this time'.

WALKING AWAY is NOT "turning the other cheek". It is SOLVING THE PROBLEM. In this particular instance, there would be no invitation to the sword-wielder to "hit me harder" this time, or next time; the police would have been called, and the sword-wielder arrested, charged, tried, etc. THAT is how we deal with people who break the rules, and convey the message to them that they should not "hit me harder" next time, unless there is no reasonable alternative, in order to avert the risk of injury or death, but to hit them back.

The person who pulled a firearm on the sword-wielding parking-spot hog BROKE THAT RULE, to all appearances. If the dispute had then escalated into actual violence and resulted in injury or death, it would, again to all appearances, have been the "fault" of the firearm-brandisher, who was the person with the opportunity, and duty under the rules, to avoid that escalation.

No less than the death of a child who was given access to a parent's firearms was the "fault" of the parent, the person with the opportunity and duty to avoid such access being had.

To my mind, any portrayal of what the person facing the sword in that case did as "self-defence" would be as bogus as a portrayal of what the parent of the dead kid did as "possessing firearms for self-defence" (or for any other lawful purpose s/he might claim). What they both did was break the rules and use firearms improperly and illegally, and CREATE a risk of injury or death.

THAT is a risk that I would like to reduce, for my own and lots of other people's benefit. *I* don't want to run the risk that someone who doesn't like how *I* park my car -- there being absolutely no guarantee that someone won't decide not to like how I park my car when I have parked my car in accordance with all the laws and all the rules of etiquette -- is going to pull a gun on *me*. And I don't want children to run the risk of shooting themselves or being shot by their parents when they jump out of closets.

And to my mind, THAT is a risk that CAN be reduced through appropriate controls on the possession and use of firearms. And, again to my mind, that can be accomplished at an acceptable cost. Especially when the "cost" (loss of all that essential self-defence ability) is not being deceitfully exaggerated by those who oppose such controls for quite different reasons.

.
.

Risk is a fact of life. And you do everything you can to minimize that risk. Dont smoke, drink in moderation, no drugs, drive safely and watch out how others drive, get a physical every couple of years, marry someone that is sane and dont visit seedy neighborhoods to buy hookers or drugs. And don't ever listen to anybody that does not have the balls or mindset to defend their own lives. Nobody get's out of life alive, but there is plenty you can do to attempt to prolong your life as long as possible.

We take chances by driving, getting out of bed, etc.

"Nobody get's out of life alive, but there is plenty you can do to attempt to prolong your life as long as possible."

I don't recall actually having said much of ANYTHING about MY life. I recall that I was talking mainly about society's responsibility to reduce the risks to which we are all exposed. Society really does have and accept that responsibility, you know, whether anyone likes it or not.

And I recall that I was talking about the RISK TO CHILDREN that often exists when there are firearms in their environment. I recall that I was talking about REDUCING that risk -- on the premise, obviously, that I think that we, as a society, SHOULD attempt to reduce that risk, because we as a society have a duty to children.

What exactly did anything YOU said have to do with that? Shall I assume that you just don't care about the problem of children killed as a result of the dangerous, negligent or stupid storage, handling or use of firearms, and that this is why you completely ignored that problem? I won't assume that. But unless you come up with some credible evidence that you do care, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't.

.

I think. It’s very easy to say that you can walk away from an attacker with a knife/sward. Have you ever tried this at home?
Maybe that is the problem. Too often we are told to turn the other cheek. Too often small criminals go away with their “small” infractions. For them it’s a clear sign that they can do anything they want. “Go ahead, take my parking place! Go ahead, take my purse, it’s not live threatening! Go ahead, rape this woman, at least you will not kill her!” At what point do we have to say “Enough!”?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Old West times ended when the people had enough and started to shoot the gang members.

But the point is to not get into suations where one is likely to be beaten, stabed, robed, raped, etc. And when one is in sutch a situation to get out of idealy by retreating, and failing that inflicting sufficent violence on the perpertrator that he/she will cease immedately.

There are some curmstances where running is impossible or likely to be unsucessfull.

"There are some circumstances where running is impossible or likely to be unsucessfull."

These are the situations where having a firearm may be helpful.

" As far as I can imagine, it would go pretty much the same to start with: robber whacks husband over head with 2x4. Then our heroine pulls out her handgun, and the would-be robber runs off without taking their stuff. "

I'd say that defending your property is just as peachy as defending yourself . For someone who makes decent money, it's not that big a deal. But to someone like myself who makes about 10K a year you put a lot of work into getting that stuff.

No, I'm not going to just hand over any of my possessions easily. But if someone is planning on illegally taking home something that has a lot of value to me then you're damned right I am going to defend it. I dont like a lot about texas, but I like the way they let people defend their property aswell as their lives.

Any theif or mugger who gets shot for their unsavory career choice deserves what they get.


In the bonk on the head and robbery case then the major crime was already done, the assault. The robbery is secondary to that, yes, but it's still not something you just let go. At the end of the day, NOT having the criminal be successful in their robbery attempt, sure would be a little bit of a comfort to me.


"So just exactly how would this have amounted to the use of a firearm in self-defence?"

Because, someone trying to mug you is a crime that involves violence, or the threat of it at very least. For anyone that thinks the "threat of violence" is no big deal go make a joke to airport security guys about it. Defense of property is important aswell.



"And if, once that assault had occurred, she had then reached for her firearm, is it not rather likely that the assaillant would have whacked her too?"


I find it likely the assailaint might have tried, but probably gotten perforated in the process. In the couple of seconds it take someone to swing a 2x4, recover, realign and swing again with any effectiveness then a properly carried firearm can be drawn and brought to bear while increasing the distance between herself and the attacker. You dont have to stand still while drawing your gun.





"Rhetorical question, really. If I were looking to whack someone over the head from behind with a 2x4, I don't think I'd care too much what s/he had in his/her hand. And y'know ... I might just pick the person with the firearm in his/her hand to do it to, if I happened to be wanting a firearm. "

Righttttt...thats all well and good to say but plays out very poorly indeed. You might get lucky and completely knock them out of action and then just pick the gun up from their unconcious body.
But one hit total knock outs are pretty much reserved for movies. You might get lucky, but you're just more likely to get shot.



"Would someone who pulled a sword against the foe in a parking-spot dispute likely have run the foe through without further provocation? Was it necessary to brandish a firearm in order to avoid personal injury by sword? Forgive me if I think NOT. So what we really have here is a firearm being used, not in self-defence, but to escalate a fight over a parking space, which could easily have been resolved by driving away."

Can you guarentee that? I already said when I posted the example that I more or less agree. The man who pulled the sword would probably not have taken it any further, but he did approach the other guy threateningly. Whether this was intimidation or an actual precurser to attack we cant know.

The fact is, unprovoked attacks happen all the time. Sometimes out of nowhere, is it much of a stretch to think that someone who is pissed off, just had words with someone, and is brandishing a weapon while approaching someone else MIGHT USE THAT WEAPON?

I mean seriously, you're handicapped to the point where you need a wheelchair. Someone who is pissed off at you starts towards you with a weapon in their hand acting in a threatening manner, and you're going to tell me that you would let them get closer?

Well alright, if getting potentially skewered is your perogative, go right ahead, but it's a very *stupid* chance to take if you have to means to prevent it.


Anyways...maybe you're right, maybe walking away would have just solved the problem... or maybe it wouldnt have. The fact is, someone flew off the handle, tried to intimidate, and possibly had intentions to injure someone else. But it's still a stupid chance to take when the situation has already got that far.

It's really simple. The firearm weilder was trying to pull into the space and was out of the vehicle trying to get his wheelchair out. He had already laid claim to the spot, and someone else rudely pulled in and took it anyways while honking their horn.
And you're seriously suggesting you would have just politely put away your wheelchair and pulled into another space without so much as an ill word?
You're either a peaceful man to the extreme, which i suppose i can admirer. Or you're not taking the situation fully into account. You're looking at it with nothing but pure logic, but the fact is, human beings dont operate on pure logic, we get mad, we exchange words.

Thats all that happened, an exchange of words, in this case, the sword weilder escalated the situation into something more then a few cuss words.


So continuing on with the "just walk away" method of dealing with bad situations.

I am just out of high school for all intents and purposes. Only been about 3 years. The days of watching others get bullyed, or occasionally experiancing it myself are still very fresh in my mind indeed.
And let me tell you something, while just walking away might work between two reasonable people, in most situations, there is only one reasonable person, and things dont often just go away that easy.

Hell, in high school I was a dorky dykey chick who had next to no friends. I was fair game for bullying, but thats ok, it happens.

At this point I had been in martial arts for about 4 or 5 years. Everyone knows in martial arts they say "Avoid violence if you can". So I did, if things got a little to hot, i found a way out of the situation. But it always got worse afterwards.

Finally, it just got to be to much. So one day i didnt just "walk away". I took a stand against one of my biggest bullys. (No small feat, considering this guy was at least a foot and a half taller and a senior while i was a sophmore)
We traded insult after insult untill eventually he just got so mad he took a swing at me. I blocked it, he charged, we both went to the ground, and I got him by the head and used a choke hold to keep him in place where he couldnt hurt me. And i kept him there till he calmed down.

Some of the bullying died down almost instantly, withen a week, my former tormentor was touting on me, and even standing up for me on several occasions against some of the others, and I didnt have a major bullying problem that year anymore.

The moral of the story? Well, there's two, predators dont understand reason, they understand strength and shows of force. Just look at nature and this bears out. Walking away from an animal doesnt mean "I'm superior to this" it means "I'm a coward".

The other one? That the martial arts tenant of "avoiding violence" doesnt mean running away from it. It means not throwing the first punch, just throwing the best one.

In my experiance, walking away hasnt solved any of my problems, it made them worse. Your mileage may vary. But for me, it just hasnt worked.



"WALKING AWAY is NOT "turning the other cheek". It is SOLVING THE PROBLEM. In this particular instance, there would be no invitation to the sword-wielder to "hit me harder" this time, or next time; the police would have been called, and the sword-wielder arrested, charged, tried, etc. THAT is how we deal with people who break the rules, and convey the message to them that they should not "hit me harder" next time, unless there is no reasonable alternative, in order to avert the risk of injury or death, but to hit them back."

Thats another one of those things that sounds very nice and reasonable. But maybe, or even probably wont play out in reality with a volitile, emotional, creature like human beings. The sword weilder could have ran up and scewered the other guy without a further word for all you know. You're hypothisising, I'm hypothisising. Both are quite possible.

Walking away is saying push me over and kick me in the ass. Thats all it is, maybe you'll get away with it, or maybe you'll get a boot in the tail. If you get away with it, you can take pleasure in feeling superior, but when you get punted across the street it's hard to feel clever.


"The person who pulled a firearm on the sword-wielding parking-spot hog BROKE THAT RULE, to all appearances. If the dispute had then escalated into actual violence and resulted in injury or death, it would, again to all appearances, have been the "fault" of the firearm-brandisher, who was the person with the opportunity, and duty under the rules, to avoid that escalation. "

I disagree, He had a sword weilding man ADVANCING ON HIM IN A THREATENING MANNER. He had MORE then reasonable cause to suspect his life or limb was about to come under attack. Had he shot the man dead on the spot he most likely would have been found to be well withen his rights. It doesnt matter if he called the other guy a "son of a bitch" or whatever. Because someone calls you names doesnt mean you can pull a sword on them, but on the contrary, if someone pulls a sword on you, you damned well better bealive you're withen your rights to pull a gun on them.


"What they both did was break the rules and use firearms improperly and illegally, and CREATE a risk of injury or death. "

The man with the gun used his firearm perfectly properly, and perfectly legally, or he would have been arrested at the scene, dont you think?


"there being absolutely no guarantee that someone won't decide not to like how I park my car when I have parked my car in accordance with all the laws and all the rules of etiquette -- is going to pull a gun on *me*."

Or a sword. At which point you can use your gun to ward off the situation.

"And to my mind, THAT is a risk that CAN be reduced through appropriate controls on the possession and use of firearms."

Why not swords?


and define appropriate controls, please. :)

may be read about here at this thread

Basically, the government will order everyone not to resist any aggression by another person against them because it's "what's best" for everyone. You get no choice in the matter. Meekly submit like the infantalized human being you've become. Like a good parent, the government will be responsible for the helpless you, if some bureaucrat gets around to it.:tinfoilhat:

Much better to beat people up for looking at you funny. Draw swords over parking spaces and cap people for laughing at you.

It's not about acting like a child, it sounds far more to me like acting like a responsible adult.

...being told not to resisting agression. Not starting it. There are always going to be people who have poor reactions to situations that are no big deal. If you let them stomp around and have their way like children then they will continue to react this way.

If a five year old doesnt get their way and starts flailing their arms and screaming and maybe throws something then you dont coddle them. You dont give into them, you grow a spine and you lay down the law. Period. These people arent reasonable human beings, they're more like CHILDREN, and accomodating them encourages them. By giving them the desired reaction (no resistence) you're encouraging their behaviour.

You also advocate teaching children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve disputes?

"By giving them the desired reaction (no resistence) you're encouraging their behaviour."

Rubbish. That's the good thing about no resistance. It often leaves the agressor looking like an idiot.

and the victim dead.

I think you need to teach your children that violence is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes, but that they do have a right to defend themselves against aggression, and that its not wrong to do so. If you dont want to fight back, thats fine, its your choice, and I would never tell you otherwise. I dont think you have the right to tell others that they cant.

Life is risk.

Chances of being killed by not resisting. Very small. Chances of being killed while resisting agression. Probably about the same.

Your fear of being a victim seems to require that you resist all perceived attempts to make you such. What constitutes agression in your book? I'd argue that someone grabbing a parking space is not in fact grounds for pulling a gun / sword to defend yourself from a perceived slight. It's just stupid.

I don't arm myself. I walk around city centres drunk in the dead of night. I fish alone at night. I drink in rough pubs. I'm not afraid.I walk away from confrontation.

What are you afraid of?

Jody linked on this forum to the DOJ statistics that showed that resistance with a firearm was the method LEAST likely to result in injury, even less than not resisting at all.

By then you are likely to be hurt or injured. As another poster eloquently explained it's possible to minimise risk.

If you want to carry a gun to feel safe, help yourself. I can't stop you. I'm British. However I feel just as safe without one.

SCOTUS has consistently held that government is not obligated to defend any individual against criminals.

DoJ says "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft

In 2001, victims defended themselves in over 4 million crimes of violence. Only 6.8% said their efforts made the situation worst. Self-protective measures employed by victims

Please reconsider your unsupported assertion "Chances of being killed by not resisting. Very small"?

Life is risk that was my point. But if it makes you feel better.

I'll modify my statement to "If by small chance you are in fact violently attacked (1000/4.9 is not odds I'd take at the bookies) there is a statistically significant chance (if you decide to resist) you are less likely to be hurt if you are ABLE to defend yourself with a handgun and you are not killed at which point you vanish from the stats. "

As the study says.

"Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes"

Furthermore the study does not count "no protective measures taken." What does that mean? What were the injury rates for those people? No homicides? How many resisting with a gun were then shot dead?

From the other study it appears that more people tried to appease the attacker than shoot them. If only 6.8% said it made things worse and with all things being equal, appeasing is more effective in avoiding injury than attacking someone with a weapon.

Finally, how come so few people attacked their attackers with a weapon? Is it due to the fact that not enough people carry guns or in fact that as a risk avoidance tactic its efficacy can be questioned?

I'd say in totality, that your chances of being killed whilst not resisting a violent assault are in fact very small. It's fear of these odds that seems to drive some here to arm themselves.

is a potential victim and the risk varies with many conditions. Citizens who are forced to live or work in high risk areas have an inalienable right to defend self and property. Statistics show that handguns reduce the risk of a victim being injured by a criminal.

That's a simple fact.

"Citizens who are forced to live or work in high risk areas
have an inalienable right to defend self and property."

WHEN are you going to demonstrate that you have even minimal understanding of what that statement MEANS?

WHEN are you going to offer some authority for your statement other than your own quite irrelevant OPINION?

I have lots more questions about your statement, but those ones do need to be answered first.

And the fact that you continue to decline to answer those questions makes it pretty obvious to me not only that you have no authority for your statement, but also that you don't have a clue what it means.

.

So I've used your statistics in a way that you find "illogical"?

Well isn't that interesting? I spent little over 10 minutes looking for and finding flaws in the methodology.

Yet you proudly proclaim,

"Statistics show that handguns reduce the risk of a victim being injured by a criminal."

Which they don't. When RESISTING, using a gun does help you avoid injury IF you have not been killed. However you cannot state anything about non resistance from the studies you present as gospel. Furthermore you can't comment at all about those who manage risk to an extent they don't find themselves a victim.

You have the temerity to complain that my logic is flawed?

Every American is a potential lottery winner (if they buy a ticket) should they go out and by a ferrari on the basis that the odds say it could happen?

Why not just admit that you're afraid and have done with it?

Why not just admit that you're afraid and have done with it?

I'm afraid :hi:

:loveya: Does that help. When I get scared I don't feel like arming. Perhaps it's just me.

the risk of a victim being injured by a criminal" might be misinterpreted by some readers.

I could have said, "Statistics show that handguns are associated with the reduced risk of a victim being injured by a criminal. The fact that those who do not defend themselves with arms are 2.5 times more likely to be injured by criminals, than those who do defend themselves with arms may not demonstrate causality, but since it is the only factor used to create two disparate groups, intelligent people will conclude that arms do decrease the risk of injury from criminals."

The net effect is the same.

The statistics you have presented thus far show.

If a victim RESISTS with any method other than a handgun they are 2.5 times more likely to be injured. IF they are not killed. Homicides are not counted and there are no figures for those who did not RESIST.

Additionally in light of the statement the author makes regarding their own study, it's impossible to infer that you are less likely to be injured by a criminal if you carry a gun.

about fifty years and then get back to me.

Goodbye :hi:

The burden of proof monsieur lies with you. I have pointed out the flaws in the study's methodology and source data. It is you who continue to ASSERT that the fact such statistics exist PROVES your argument.

As one of such infinite statistical knowledge and not insubstantial arrogance you should know that this constitutes shoddy scientific method.

My hypothesis is that you really don't know what you are talking about. With every dismissive parrot fashion post you submit the evidence just mounts and mounts.

Show me how many gun owners resisting a violent attack were killed (thereby homicide).

Show me how many people who did not resist were hurt.

Until you can do both of the above I'm afraid your shrill protestations won't get you far.

but I think that's "mistress jody" to you.

Jody also seems to have me on ignore, whether literally or figuratively. She (I think) just doesn't seem to want to answer my really really brief questions. What makes you so damned special?!

But thank you for giving her (I think) the opportunity to be so entertaining. What I take, from the evidence, to be a bare high school graduate (I shudder to think that any more education might have been wasted in that direction) critiquing your statistical analysis skills. Too very funny.

"Dismissive parrot fashion post", "shrill protestations" ... indeed. And so obviously so much more useful ... for some purposes ... than coherent thought and any actual analysis of one's own. Especially when one can just call one's parroting and protesting analysis. I mean, one can, so why not do it, eh?

Think of all the time we waste actually knowing what we're talking about, and then doing it coherently. I think I'll stick with "your mother wears army boots" from now on.

Or:

"My hypothesis is that you really don't know what you are talking about."

You look like an expert on that point to me; I'll just quote you. ;)

.

Just remember to credit me in the bibiliography.

Jody, a bibliography is a list of sources drawn from, usually presented at the end of a book.

A book is set of written, printed, or blank pages bound along an edge encased between protective covers.

"I have pointed out the flaws in the study's methodology and source data."

Do you have a study at hand that refutes his claims, and that does not have flaws in it's methodology and source data?

I've never seen a "perfect" survey or study...sometimes you have to go with what you've got.

Also, I'm curious how one would conduct a survey aboot gun owners resisting a violent attack being killed, much less it's relevance. If you're talking aboot gun owners who were unarmed at the time of the attack, I'm wondering about relevance. If you're talking aboot gun owners who draw their gun during the attack and die, how exactly would you collect those figures? I would imagine it would be easy if the attack was videotaped, but otherwise, how could you separate the different possibilities, such as he didn't draw and the criminal took his gun off the body, he drew and the criminal took the gun off of his body, and other possibilities?

Exactly.

On the basis of that alone, Jody should be a tad careful about ASSERTING things based on flawed data non? The relevance is that if Jody ASSERTS that using a gun to defend yourself makes you safer when in fact we don't know whether it is in fact likely to get you killed they are being disingenuous.

Just for info. I don't suppose you have a link to the full study?

but even flawed data is better than going on no data at all.

BTW, if you assume that all homicides/suicides with guns (around 30K/year) are the result of an armed person drawing a gun and being killed (this is definitely not the case, but I'm feeling generous), you still don't alter the overall percentages that much.

I don't have a link to the study, but I've got a hard copy of it. What's your question, and I'll post the survey's answer.

"but even flawed data is better than going on no data at all."

Hmm, bad data, bad laws? It all depends on whether the data is fundamentally flawed. I suppose like a study on suicides claiming that 100% of those that tried to commit suicide regretted the decision, without including data for those that were successful, it renders the study meaningless.

Thanks for the offer. but I really need to see the whole thing in order to see how the study was performed and the source data used. I'll have a look for it when I've got some time. If we start this it'd just turn in question, counter question for hours.

This also probably provides more ammo to you than I. How can you already be the victim of a violent crime when you have a handgun available? I kind of thought the whole point was to avoid it.

the whole point is to SURVIVE it, with your person intact. It'd be nice if you survived with your property intact, and even NICER if you survived with your property intact, and nobody at all hurt, even the attacker. Saving the life of the attacker and keeping your property intact would be bonuses, but the base issue is saving the life of the victim, at least in my book.

Regarding your suicide hypothesis, not really. It renders the study useless for giving definitive answers to the question of if ALL suicides regret it, but you certainly can draw narrowly tailored conclusions about suicide survivors from it.

To start you out, the data comes from the NCVS. The NCVS has flaws, but hey, so does every other survey out there, along with statistical compilations like the UCR.

not just the exerpt.

to the whole study, which found that around a third of people who did not resist an attack at all were injured.

is by all means the best thing to do, if possible. But its not always possible. Aggression can be many different things and come in many different levels. Its not a cut and dried thing. I would agree that
"someone grabbing a parking space is not in fact grounds for pulling a gun", there is no justification for it. You could elevate the threat perceived by the other person by getting out of your car and being very vocal and threatening, but thats still not reason to draw a weapon, but my bells would be going off and my assemment of you would be changing rapidly. Now if you get out with that sword and advance in a threatening manner, thats a whole different story. You are clearly the aggressor, and your actions are saying that you are in fact a threat. At that point the danger is rapidily shifting in your direction, as if you fail to stop when told to and continue to advance, I will most certainly shoot you.
Now if you are in that position, with no time or place to go, perhaps with your infant child in the car, and no weapon other than your wits, what do you do? The person with the sword is advancing quickly and very much seems intent on making sushi out of you. How do you deal with that? Still think not resisting is the answer?
I dont care that you dont go armed, hey, thats most certainly your choice, well, not yours, since your in the UK, but here in the US for the most part it is available to those who wish it. Then again, those in the UK who do use and carry handguns are not doing so legally, so so much for being bothered by silly rules. Drinking in rough pubs and walking around drunk, alone at night doesnt really make much sense to me, but hey, again, its your call. I commend you on walking away from confrontation, I agree totally with that, when possible. But what if your drunk, alone, in a rough pub, and they wont "let" you walk away, what happens then? I'm glad your not afraid, I'm not either. :)

"I'd argue that someone grabbing a parking space is not in fact grounds for pulling a gun / sword to defend yourself from a perceived slight. It's just stupid. "

No one pulled a sword to defend themselves from anything, they pulled a sword to intimidate another human being. Thats not defense, thats agression.

Pulling a gun on someone advancing towards you weilding a very deadly weapon isn't stupid. It's the right thing to do, unless you'd rather risk getting severe lacerations at best, dead at worst.

Can a sword outrun a car?

I know he was out of the car, but thats it. He was either helpping his wife unload his wheel chair, or He might have been in it. I read about this in an article when it first happened and the article made it sound as if he was already in the chair, but this one seems to sound more like he was helping to unload it. Not sure which is the case.

Hmmm? Fishy

Ok, so he was out of the car and grabbed the gun from inside. Fair enough ( Guess the article that gave the impression that he was in a wheel chair was mistaken)

However, we have to remember, that these two are trying to fit into the same parking space, it's not like the guy was that far away. Even I forgot that, I was picturing the swordsman walking to his car about 10 feet away and getting the sword then coming back. But now that I think about it, these two were in much closer proximity then i pictured.

However, that makes the situation all the more urgent. Maybe his wife had the keys, maybe they were so close together that he didnt think he had time to get all the way in and start the car to drive off. I dont know, wasnt there.

My supposition is the guy pulled the sword, the other guy saw it, grabbed his gun out of his glovebox or under the seat(?) and immedietly pointed at him. Maybe the swordguy was to close to the other guys wife for comfort? I dont know. But now that I am picturing them being closer together then before, i think his decison was all the more right.

if, instead of spending his time getting the gun out of his car, he and his wife had got back in the car and closed the doors (the sword-wielder could really only have been close to ONE side of the car, after all), they would have been perfectly safe.

I'm not familiar with swords that have the power to pierce windshields; perhaps after a few tries and with a great deal of force, although I imagine that a fist would work more effectively for that purpose -- but in any event I'd think that yes, the car could outrun the sword.

On the other hand, getting back in your car might not be the best tactic for avoiding getting shot, if the irked aggressor were somewhat "better" armed than this one ... and of a mind (or sufficiently out of it) to actually do someone injury over a parking space ...

.

You're putting to much faith in your car to protect you. You'd be better protected all right. But I can tell you for a fact that a sword doesnt have to go through a windshield, it can go right through a car door with almost no problem. Or through the roof, with even less problem.

No, Cowering in your car would be a bad idea.

they're easy to break, and once it's broken, you just wave the sword around inside, and both people hiding in the car are instantly a mess.

"By giving them the desired reaction (no resistence) you're encouraging their behaviour."

... is framing the issue as a totally false dichotomy.

In the silly sword story, there was quite possibly a viable third alternative: call the police. The sword-wielder was standing there with his licence plate in full view. Without speaking to the "necessity" of pulling a gun on him to avoid being actually run through -- I don't have the facts I need in order to speak to that issue -- in a situation where there is no such necessity, then one simply calls the police, and of course takes the licence plate numbers of any witnesses who might not offer up their names.

So when there is no necessity to take direct action -- no reasonably apprehended threat to one's person or life -- one's duty is still and always to walk away.

And I -- and society -- don't really give a crap whether somebody loses face when s/he does that. And I -- and my society (my thanks to everyone who has contributing to building it) -- don't really give a crap whether someone loses his/her property when s/he does that.

And as far as "encouraging" someone to do it again, then I simply reiterate: that is what we have courts, and school principals, or whoever else has authority over problematic individuals, to make sure doesn't happen. And unless someone's person or life is in danger, s/he simply is not entitled to take whatever law applies into his/her own hands and harm someone else, or endanger the public, where there is no legitimate threat of harm, regardless of whether the courts or school principals are doing their job.

I'm quite sure someone will now, or sometime in future, again misrepresent this position as a recommendation to "turn the other cheek", when it has absolutely nothing at all to do with turning the other cheek. And I'll have my message deleted if I say that calling this position a recommendation to "turn the other cheek" is a lie. But there you go.

.

And as far as "encouraging" someone to do it again, then I simply reiterate: that is what we have courts, and school principals, or whoever else has authority over problematic individuals, to make sure doesn't happen...

What about the parents? I dont think most of the "repeat" offenders just started this behavior. I think the biggest problem today is lack of parenting. Maybe if the kids were properly taught from the start, we wouldnt have half the problems we have today.




And unless someone's person or life is in danger, s/he simply is not entitled to take whatever law applies into his/her own hands and harm someone else, or endanger the public, where there is no legitimate threat of harm, regardless of whether the courts or school principals are doing their job.

I agree. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what lethal force rules are and when and how you get to that final act. I believe, at least from experiece with people I associate with and myself, that it is your responsibility to know these things if you plan on carring weapon. Believe it or not, but we dont take it lightly, and understand our responsibilties. Being macho or losing face has nothing to do with this. If being macho or saving face is something you worry about, then dont carry a gun! When you carry a gun, you go out of your way to avoid trouble, not look for it, and some things you might not let slide when not carrying a gun will be ignored for the most part. The absolute last thing I want to do is have to draw my gun on a person. If it gets that far, something is terribly wrong, and ALL options have been exhausted. But then again, those who dont carry a gun most likely wont understand this, especially if the listen to what some groups (who also dont carry weapons)tell them to believe.

And before anyone gets his/her knickers in a knot: that's a paraphrase of a line of Lenny Bruce's, in the mouth of Tonto, as the Lone Ranger tells him that "we" are surrounded ...

"Believe it or not, but we dont take it lightly, and understand our responsibilties."

So ... who exactly is this "we", and by what authority do you speak for them?

That's the real question, ain't it? You don't speak for anyone who does store or handle or use a firearm in such a way that someone else is, or may be, harmed or killed contrary to those rules of yours, do you? And since we know very well that quite a few such people exist, what's your point?

"If being macho or saving face is something you worry about, then dont carry a gun!"

Hey, great rule! Any idea how we might go about ENFORCING IT?

"If it gets that far, something is terribly wrong, and ALL options have been exhausted. But then again, those who dont carry a gun most likely wont understand this, especially if the listen to what some groups (who also dont carry weapons)tell them to believe."

Hmm. How about: "Those who don't carry a firearm most likely don't give a shit". Because that stuff of yours is all a whole lot of useless blah blah and nothing more. I mean, like, given that we know that people actually do get shot, injured and killed, as a result of the actions of people who don't seem to know or care about your rules and whom you would nonetheless permit to have access to firearms ... and, I'm quite sure, people who claim to know and follow them ... you don't seem to have a point. Again.

And perhaps you'd take your snide and extremely stupid allegations, in a post in response to one of mine, about "those who ... listen to what some groups ... tell them to believe" and stick it up your barrel and aim it somewhere slightly more fitting, painful as that might end up being for you.

.

that your one of the people who should not have access to a weapon, eh? ....and stick it up your barrel and aim it somewhere slightly more fitting, painful as that might end up being for you.

Is this "saving face" or "machismo"?

And I thought Canadians were peace loving and friendly and would never be like this? I'm shocked!

Did you somehow fail to notice that I SUGGESTED that YOU stick your insinuations up YOUR barrel and (YOU) aim it?

Can you tell me exactly how any of that caused you to "see" that

your <sic>one of the people who should not have access to a weapon"

?

Please. I'm asking a question. I need an answer.

In the meantime,

"so I see what it really boils down to is....."

... let's see what you can see here; these are all just the opinions of another nobody, of course, but they're the same as mine, so I'm citing them and adopting them. All emphasis mine.
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html

... We have a serious problem in this country ... -- a cult that conducts its political life in an aggressive and antirational jargon. On many occasions here I have dissected the workings of this jargon, but now I want to focus on the cultivated use of jargon for purposes of emotionally abusing people. My long message about the hate mail that I've received since I started covering the election controversy brought quite a bit of testimony on the matter from people who are distressed at the name-calling, disregard for reality, and all-around dehumanizing scorn that they suffer from the members of this cult. Many of these folks reported feeling all alone with this abuse, and they spoke poignantly about being trapped in overwhelming conservative parts of the country where the cult and its jargon dominate public discussion to the exclusion of everything else.

... I am talking about people who express themselves in snide, sarcastic, scornful tones, who express themselves in innuendoes, who invest incredible effort in provoking an intemperate response so that they can portray themselves as victims, and who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false.

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness. Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. ... In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

And this is not just any distortion. ... Underneath, in other words, it's a matter of associationism. Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. The first step, very often, is to project the very fact of engaging in associationism into one's opponent: by writing about messages of disagreement that were hateful, it is said, "they" are the ones who associated disagreement with hate.

Sorta like ... projecting a posture of violence and irrationality onto someone who decried violence and irrationality? As you have just done, without any basis whatsoever, to me?

You happen to come from the part of the country the author mentions at the beginning there?

Seen anyone suggest that someone who writes that "scum attend gun shows" is saying that "people who attend gun shows are scum"?

Any of this ringing a bell? No answer needed. Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

.

Thanks.
Hope that didnt tie up to much of your time. :)

I don't think most people who carry guns are nutcase's with no value of human life. Iam sure few people would want to take a human life whether they owned a gun or not. I am sure you are a responsible person just there are some people who when they loose their cool would reach for a gun. A few years ago some one pulled a gun on a few relatives of mine on the road. Just a few days ago two people had a shoot out on the road. And I have seen numerous stories on the news of people useing guns at work on the road and other places.

Iam sure you have ran across people who are crazy and have anger managment issues and would hope they never carried a gun outside their home. People never know who those people are until they pull out the gun and use it then it would be to late.

"Iam sure you have ran across people who are crazy and
have anger managment issues and would hope they never
carried a gun outside their home. People never know who
those people are until they pull out the gun and use it
then it would be to late.

Unlike, of course, all those mad, dangerous scalpel-wielding doctors -- who have to pass rigorous training courses and have to meet the professional standards for being doctors before they are ever allowed to wield those scalpels against members of the public.

Yeah, yeah (I say, not to rusk, but to the cheap seats). Anybody can buy a scalpel. And when somebody can show that there is a hugely disproportionate risk of harm as a result of unrestricted access to small sharp instruments, and how it would be possible to restrict that access even if it were desirable, we'll talk.

.

doesn't pose a threat of harm to somebody, what does?

Does a person have to be stabbed to death before they can reply with force?

Teaching children that throwing the first punch is wrong, throwing the best one is what counts.

Dont start situations, end them.

Speak softly, carry a big stick.

"Rubbish. That's the good thing about no resistance. It often leaves the agressor looking like an idiot."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh my god, i cant bealive you said that! It's obvious you're thinking in very narrow terms. You're either thinking we're suggesting violence to resolve minor situations, like someone spills a drink on you on accident. Or you're trying to make it SOUND like we are....either way

So if someone decides they dont like something you said and they decide to beat the hell out of you for it (Dont laugh, you know it happens, and I've seen it happen) while you're sitting there, "not resisting" they're knocking you around, kicking you in the stomach and laughing and THEY look like an idiot?

THEY look like an idiot when you're picking yourself up off the ground covered in blood and dirt and you didnt even TRY to stop them, and THEY look like an idiot?

Thats the most foolish thing I have ever heard. Not a personal attack, I think you're just not considering the implications of what you just said.

In a verbal argument, sure, maybe just walking away can make you look superior. But when an unreasonable party results to violence and you dont bother to try and stop it, YOU"RE the only one that looks like an idiot.

I had a very dear freind of mine get punched in the nose for no reason other then him and someone else were kind of bickering. They went their seperate ways, 5 minutes later, the guy comes back and pops my friend right in the nose. Thankfully he must have had a similar childhood to you. So instead of resisting, he just stood there and bled on himself while the other guy calmly walked away.

Now i love the guy to death, like i said, he's one of my best friends. But let me assure you, HE was the one looking like an idiot. Standing there Holding your bloody nose doesnt make you look morally superior, it doesnt make you look more civilized, it makes you look like a weak willed fool who doesnt value themselves enough to defend themselves from attack.


Thats what we're saying.

Getting puched in the nose dose not give some one the right to use deadliy force. First of all Iam not saying people should just stnad there and get beating like a punching bag. And many people prefer to use non letheal protection since they are afraid of useing too much force.

In alot of areas of the country being 'punched in the nose' does give someone the power and the justification to use lethal and deadly force.

I never knew that. Death penalty for nose punching.

Christ.

Lethal force is justified if you feel your life is in danger. If someone who has an obvious physical advantage over you, like a man assaulting a woman, or a big muscular guy assaulting a skinny guy.
You said you're a big guy in another post, so it might take a lot to make you feel threatened. But you have to remember, some people arent as big as you are, and might be more antsy and feel that they are in serious danger.

No, obviously, if someone pops you in the nose and thats the end of it, you cant shoot them, but if they press the assault, then yes, you can. You're going to have a trial to determine if it was justified, so you had better bealive that you really were in trouble. But it's not unheard of.

"I never knew that. Death penalty for nose punching."

That, and the subsequent qualification by your other interlocutor, are just some folks' opinion. And as we all know, nobody's "opinion" about the law really matters a pinch of poop. Wouldn't it be nice if any of them actually produced a law that says what they say it does?

I know exactly what the law in my jurisdiction says about justification for the use of force, whether lethal or otherwise. I can reproduce what it says here on a moment's notice, and I can explain for anyone to whom it isn't quite clear. It contains requirements like reasonable belief that there was no other means of averting the death or grievous bodily harm which the person who used force in self-defence had a reasonable apprehension would occur, and that the force used be no more than is necessary to defend him/herself and not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the assailant.

These are the things that civilized societies normally require in order to avoid having people walk around shooting each other dead because they got punched in the nose.

I understand that there may be some yahoo jurisdictions to the south of me where a private individual is permitted, by law, to use more than necessary force, and even lethal force, in the "defence" of property. Up here, a law that permitted that sort of thing would be struck down rather smartly by the Supreme Court as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (which include due process), I can tell y'all in my very informed opinion.

.

to burst your bubble,

I understand that there may be some yahoo jurisdictions to the south of me where a private individual is permitted, by law, to use more than necessary force, and even lethal force, in the "defence" of property.Up here, a law that permitted that sort of thing would be struck down rather smartly by the Supreme Court as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (which include due process), I can tell y'all in my very informed opinion.

here in the "south" we "yahoo"'s don't give a shit about what takes place north of the 49th parallel.

I believe the issue under scrutiny here i.e. justified use of force, pertains to the state within the US in which the act is committed.

Instead of just taking it at face value I'm sure we will now all read a very lengthy and long winded rendition of how my statement contains some misconstrued point that will be elaborated on and dissected very eloquently.

So I will thank whoever posts it in advance.

You weren't.

The one who burst my bubble, that is. No bubble, nothing to burst. Whatever you're pointing that pin at, it ain't me.

"I believe the issue under scrutiny here i.e. justified use
of force, pertains to the state within the US in which the act
is committed."

Uh ... ... ... so?

"Instead of just taking it at face value I'm sure we will now
all read a very lengthy and long winded rendition of how my statement
contains some misconstrued point that will be elaborated on and
dissected very eloquently."

I truly hate to disappoint you, but I was unable to find anything in your post to dissect.

I was unable to find anything in your post at all.

.

No, getting punched doesnt certainly give the right to use deadly force. Thats not what we were discussing in this paticular sub-thread. Just using "violence" in general. Not just firearms, I think you just missed most of the previous posts :)


Anyways, getting punched certainly does warrent using a choke hold on the attacker while the police are called or till the attacker calms down. Or you could just tighten up and make them unconscious. That way no one gets hurt except for both of your ego's and hopefully the agressor goes down for assault and battery.
But the thing is, you're certainly withen your rights to defend yourself

There's the difference. Your friend sounds like a really really good guy to me. What should he have done? Gone home got gun, shot guy? Or just started punching wildly? He ended up with what? A bloody nose... ooooohhhh.

The fact you think he looked like an idiot is telling.

"if someone decides they dont like something you said "

Apologise, walk away.

You my friend may learn a very hard lesson. I'm a large man myself. I used to fight (for sport) and was reasonable. I don't any more, I realised it was juvenile macho rubbish. I will tell you this for free, It doesn't matter how good you think you are, there is always someone better. Resisting their attentions may do you no good at all. You will still get pasted and you'll still be picking yourself off the floor bleeding. That or you run the risk of killing someone with your bare hands. Unless you are willing to kill over rubbish like the following:

"So if someone decides they dont like something you said and they decide to beat the hell out of you for it (Dont laugh, you know it happens, and I've seen it happen) while you're sitting there, "not resisting" they're knocking you around, kicking you in the stomach and laughing and THEY look like an idiot?"

You'd best find ways of avoiding it. I have. I've not been assaulted in 17yrs. When I was, I got up and walked away from it. I'm pretty sure had I wanted to I could have battered the guy. What would that have proved?

I'd be careful characterising me or my comments as "foolish". If you spoke to me like that in a bar I might just decide to renounce my non violent stance and cave your face in ;)

He regrets it now. He realized that all his passifist bullshit in highschool only made things worse in the long run. After the guy got away with punching him one time, he had no problems picking on him anymore, or getting his friends to pick on him, or their friends to pick on him....
Oh Sure, he didnt want to fight, but mostly cause he was afraid to.


Now, just for the record. Outside of school, where shit happens, I just dont see any reason why i would ever get in a physical fight with anyone. (Not that i did much before anyways) I dont go to bars and get drunk, I dont put myself in adverse social situations, for all intents and purposes I just let things slide. But thats not good enough for some people.
Those are the people where violence is justified. Where someone just keeps picken and picken, and makes it obvious they're not gonna start. So you say something back. They dont like that, so they want to escalate the situation, maybe take a swing...thats when you put them down. Some people are not reasonable people. Thats just the way of things.


Anyways.

"Gone home got gun, shot guy?"

Uhm, I'm fairly certain you know for a fact I'm not advocating that. You respond to violence with the appropriette level of defense. Heck no, you dont shoot someone for a punch in the nose.

"Or just started punching wildly?"

Probably not. Considering the distance between the two during the incident, I probably would have recommended muey thai style laying your shin across the other persons quite forcefully. If your attacker isnt hell bent on doing you damage then a good swift knock on the shins tends to dissuade most people. heck, even drunk uncles. Thats when you walk away, when you're sure nothing is going to be hitting you in the back.


"I will tell you this for free, It doesn't matter how good you think you are, there is always someone better."

I dont need you to tell me that, i watch kung-fu movies all the time, and it's in pretty much every one of them, lol. ;) The trick is to not run into that person. Or to just know who they are. "Got to know when to hold, and know when to fold, know when to walk away, know when to run" or so the song goes.

"Resisting their attentions may do you no good at all. You will still get pasted and you'll still be picking yourself off the floor bleeding."

Sure, maybe. But just because someone somewhere is better then you means that you have to take the licks from anyone that feels inclined to give them? I think not.



"That or you run the risk of killing someone with your bare hands. Unless you are willing to kill over rubbish like the following:

(stuff)"

Well, you know, if you dont resist, maybe you just run the risk of getting killed by their bare hands. Is that more desireable? It's not uncommon for people to unintentionally beat someone to death with just their barehands. So is it still a good idea to not resist even if it kills you?

Nah, i dont see it that way. I see it this way.
"Better to take arrows in the forehead then in the back"
"If one is going to die in battle, one should be resolved to have their corpse facing the enemy"
Little samurai tidbits. Just for fun.


"You'd best find ways of avoiding it. I have. I've not been assaulted in 17yrs."

I havent been assaulted in at least 3 myself. But then again, I am obviously a lot younger then you. Like I said, I see almost no reason I would ever get in a physical fight with anyone. I'd wager we have very similar methods of dealing with situations like that. Namely avoiding them. I think the differance is, we disagree on when it is appropriette to react.


"When I was, I got up and walked away from it. I'm pretty sure had I wanted to I could have battered the guy. What would that have proved?"

It's not about proving anything. There is a chance that instead of just whipping up on you he could have beat you to death. That is not a chance I would be willing to take. Then again, I am going to assume you're bigger then I am so maybe you can take it better.

I dont know, and i dont like to take chances. I would have resisted with an appropriette amount of force. Unless I remotely felt that the attacker was going to kill me, or severely injure me, I probably wouldnt have drawn down on them. But I would have resisted and I would have done my best to make sure that I was the one that walked away first, and they were the ones picking themselves up off the ground ;)



"I'd be careful characterising me or my comments as "foolish". If you spoke to me like that in a bar I might just decide to renounce my non violent stance and cave your face in ;)"



Eh, sorry, I still think it's a foolish comment, and besides, if you were to cave my face in I think you'd have a hard time explaining to the police why you hit some woman just because she called something you said foolish, dont you think? ;)
(continuing in jest)
And heck, If you did that i might have "gone home, get gun, shoot guy"..laughs

"Those are the people where violence is justified. Where someone
just keeps picken and picken, and makes it obvious they're not gonna
start. So you say something back. They dont like that, so they want
to escalate the situation, maybe take a swing...thats when you put
them down. Some people are not reasonable people. Thats just the way
of things.

That's for sure all right. Some people are not reasonable people.

What reasonable person would "say something back" way back there at the beginning of your tale?

What reasonable person would not think that a person who would "say something back" -- knowing, as plainly as the person who composed that little scenario obviously knows, that the inevitable result is going to be physical violence -- was very obviously *not* a reasonable person?

What reasonable person would not listen to that other person "pickin' and pickin' (again, forgive my cleaning up the spelling/grammar)" and -- knowing as this one says s/he does that "they're not gonna start" (i.e. throw the first punch?) -- IGNORE THAT OTHER PERSON.

No reasonable person. An adolescent boy, maybe. And that's how they learn their lessons about avoidable risks, and the consequences of risk-taking behaviour.

"Saying something back" to a person obviously looking to engage in physical violence with one's self is about the stupidest kind of risk-taking behaviour I can imagine. Even an adolescent boy is really quite capable of assessing the risks and foreseeing the consequences of *that* one.

Society, my dear, does not protect adults against someone engaged in "pickin' and pickin'". If you don't like someone doing it to you, you have the options of ignoring him/her or walking away ... or, of course, provoking him/her into hitting you.

If you choose the latter course of action, you can indeed make a claim to a self-defence justification if you hit back, if you reasonably believed that you had no other way of averting the death or grievous bodily harm to yourself that you reasonably apprehended, and if so, if you did not use more than necessary force and did not intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm (feel free to find out what your own law says) ... since society requires that the person doin' the pickin' *also* ignore or walk away from someone who "says something back" ... or keep on pickin' of course.

Civilized societies do NOT permit the use of retaliatory force; they permit the use of defensive force. They really are very different things.

But apart from all that, wouldn't the socially responsible person ignore/walk away so as to save society the expensive bother of sorting out what two such obviously unreasonable people might choose to do to each other?

Cripes, what a load of juvenile chest-pounding and pissing that scenario of yours is. And are all the girls really impressed when it's over?

Oh, lord. I've just realized from rereading your post that you purport to be a woman, and so I assume that your scenario is one to which you have been or anticipate that you might be a party. Are they giving schoolgirls in the US regular testosterone injections these days?

Anyhow:

Those are the people where violence is justified."

NO. Whether it's justified in your opinion is entirely irrelevant. It is NOT justified in the opinion that matters -- society's, as expressed in laws -- unless the violence used met all of the requirements for the self-defence justification.

"You respond to violence with the appropriette level of defense."

And the operative word, of course, IS "defence". You apparently need to consult your dictionary as well as your laws on that one.
.

And the operative word, of course, IS "defence". You apparently need to consult your dictionary as well as your laws on that one.

"Defence" is chiefly a British variant of DEFENSE. which is by the way how it is spelled in US/state statutes, and referenced to in Websters dictionary.

""Defence" is chiefly a British variant of DEFENSE. which is
by the way how it is spelled in US/state statutes, and referenced
to in Websters dictionary."

And I give a crap ... why?

And you are telling me this ... why?

Perhaps you had some notion that this was relevant to something I said. And that would be ... why?

Perhaps you thought that the fact that I quoted someone who had spelled "defense" his/her way, and then I spelled "defence" my way, meant something? And that would be ... what?

Oh, I see. Perhaps you thought that I suggested that the poster consult his/her dictionary to learn the spelling of "defence". Oh, how silly. I suggested that s/he consult the dictionary to learn the MEANING of "defence", quite irrespective of how s/he chose to spell it. Duh, eh? Like THAT wasn't obvious from the context to anyone with a brain cell reading it in good faith.

(And I do think we've been over this before, but "defense" is the "variant", sweetums. "Defence" is how the entire English-speaking world other than USAmericans spells the word, and the entire rest of the English speaking world doesn't really give a shit what is "referenced to" -- whatever that might be -- in Webster's Dictionary.)

Nonetheless, this is relevant to a discussion of the elements of a self-defence justification, however it might be spelled and whatever jurisdiction it might exist in ... how?

.

if you can't even spell it in the same context of the culture and laws you are addressing, why would anyone believe you to be capable of demonstrating relevance.

You sure like to dish it out, but you can't take it.......

"Like THAT wasn't obvious from the context to anyone with a brain cell reading it in good faith."

Coming from you...now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The point being ... if you can't even spell it in the same
context of the culture and laws you are addressing, why would
anyone believe you to be capable of demonstrating relevance."

... that this would be a point, on a planetoid (perhaps made of dairy products) with very little gravity, so that when it was dropped from a large height, giving it lots of time to elongate well despite its density, it looked kinda like ...



that. Or, and I can't resist what Google serendipitously found for me on an image search for "raindrop":



"Pointy", eh? Unlike your "point". Flat, it was. Fell flat, it did. No acuity. Missed its target.

Gawd awmighty, if incorrect spelling (even if this had been incorrect spelling, which it wasn't) were a criterion by which to judge credibility, I'm afraid that this board would be full of virtually nothing but incredibility.

Which wouldn't be a big change, of course.

.

I'm curious about your technique.

I know that you're not the only, or probably even the best, practitioner of it hereabouts, but you're as good a one to ask as anyone.

How much training does one need before one can successfully read an entire post (if that's what you did, but no, I won't assume that; not enough evidence) in order to identify a sentence that, when taken out of context, can be portrayed as something that it wasn't, and that once so portrayed has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the post?

Or an alternative question: how much gall does it take?

If you like, you could tell me: how much honesty does it take?

.

Perhaps that's how appropriate is spelled in Polynesia.

If you attack me. I am going to do my damndest to prevent you from doing harm to me, even if that entails harming you. Thats what it means.

That actually had me laughing when he told me it was spelled wrong and that I need to consult MY dictionary.

is QUOTE the bit where I "told <you> it was spelled wrong".

You might keep in mind that people generally consult dictionaries (and are advised to consult dictionaries) to ascertain the MEANING of words.

And you might conclude that since the subject of my post was the MEANING of "self-defence", and since I had said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the SPELLING of "defence", the purpose for which I suggested that you consult the dictionary was to ascertain the MEANING of "defence", however you might choose to spell it.

You might also consider how the fact that some people are wont to go off on idiotic tangents in their posts DOES NOT MEAN that you can ever assume that this is what I do, and that you would be wise to read what's in front of your face, when it's written by me, as if it is RELEVANT to the subject I am addressing.

Advice that you look up the MEANING of "defence" was relevant to the subject I was addressing. Advice that you look up the SPELLING of "defence" would have been irrelevant, and in any event totally stupid. What grounds you would have for thinking that *I* would give such stupid advice as to tell you to look up the spelling of "defence" -- that *I* am not aware of the differing customary spellings of words in different dialects of English, and of the complete correctness of any customary spelling in an international discourse -- I simply cannot imagine.

So if ever you misread (however accidentally) something in a post of mine as being, on its face, irrelevant and stupid, where it was not plainly intended, for rhetorical effect, to be a demonstration of irrelevance and stupidity, you just count to 5 and read it again, or politely ask what I was trying to say that you didn't quite grasp.

The little rule that you should assume that I am talking about something that is in issue instead of engaging in some pointless diversionary tactic, unless you have unequivocal evidence to the contrary, will help you enormously as you go about this. (Impossible though it may be to generalize that assumption to others' posts, it should obviously always be made unless there is some good reason not to make it. Why one would assume, instead, that a poster came to this forum to engage in a completely pointless spelling dispute I simply cannot imagine.)

And when you've accomplished these preliminaries, perhaps you could then take that little extra step and say something relevant to the topic at hand yourself when you "reply". 'k?

(In this case, that might have consisted of identifying the meaning of "defence", however you choose to spell it, in common usage and in the laws of your jurisdiction, and if you wanted to go the whole hog and actually participate in a discussion, identifyong how your opinions are, or are not, consistent with that meaning, and perhaps say something about any inconsistenies identified. You can still do this. Well ... you "may"; whether you "can" or not ... .)

Note to readers:
I do not expect this poster, or this poster's chums, to take this sage advice. I expect this poster, and this poster's chums, to continue ... "misunderstanding" ... things that I say whenever the opportunity to ... "misunderstand" ... them arises. I would not want anyone to think that I am sitting here in an abyss of disappointment at the quality of discourse I encounter here.

I mean, I am, because I can't lower my expectations of good faith and intelligence quite as far as it would take in order to avoid *all* disappointment. So let's just say that I am seldom surprised.

.

626 words :evilgrin:

Hey, we're all friends here.
We rag each other and get under each others skin every now and then, but it ain't personal.

I regard being lied to, and especially being lied about, as very "personal". (I am making a general statement. Anyone who interpreted that general statement as being about, or directed at, him/her specifically would be ... um ... misinterpreting it. I'm just stating my opinion, after all.)

I expect it, I am not surprised when I see it, I am not hugely disappointed when I see it. I won't be spending my weekend wailing and gnashing my teeth over any lies told to or about me on this board in the last week.

But I do inwardly weep for the future of a liberal democracy in which such behaviour is tolerated, let alone so obviously approved of by so many of its members.

I'll just keep on recommending my latest favourite read:
http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html

I shouldn't have to do it, but I should maybe add that I offer it not as a DIY manual on how to put together deceptive arguments and how to engage in bad faith discourse. No, I offer it as a sort of excellent sermon that, who knows, might affect even just one person. Just one person might look in that mirror and realize that s/he cannot go on twisting what people say; cannot go on claiming that people are and say things that they are not and do not say; cannot go on treating the discussion of important public issues as if they were schoolyard slanging matches to be won by whoever shouts loudest; cannot go on disregarding what anyone else says and acting as if no one else has ever said anything that is important to the discussion and that requires a response from an honest and sincere person acting and speaking in good faith. That the image in the mirror is just too damned ugly to look at.

And hey, heaven forbid that by recommending that site I should be interpreted that because someone engages in deceptive argument and bad faith discourse, s/he is a right-winger. Heavens to betsy, *I* didn't say that. *I* would not want to be seen engaging in associationism of that nature.

It's an offer, and it's entirely free of charge. Nobody can be compelled to look in a mirror.

... I say to no one in particular who may be in the habit of making less than accurate, truthful, relevant contributions to the discussion or saying less than accurate, truthful, relevant things about other participants in it ...

(typo edited)

Fine, to hell with more or less nice scenarios.

Someone breaks into your house with intent to rob you, finds out that you're home when they thought you werent and decides that killing you is better then having you identify them. They then proceed to stab you repeatedly with a sword.


How do you walk away from that? Huh?


Oh, lord. I've just realized from rereading your post that you purport to be a woman

Ya callin me a liar? ;)

I'd say that sounds ridiculously close to being a personal attack. If you want to call me on the phone then I will gladly give you my number. Or anyone else that wants to see for themselves for that matter, just send me a private message and we'll settle any questions you might have.

"And so I assume that your scenario is one to which you have been or anticipate that you might be a party."

Not necessarily, it was just projecting a possible scenario, but yeh I suppose it could happen to me aswell.

"Are they giving schoolgirls in the US regular testosterone injections these days?"

No, it's all hormones in the milk ;)

So I'm sorry I dont fit whatever archetype you have for women, but I dont appreciate someone "hinting" that I am a liar.

Anyways, thats ok, i realize i have a very blunt manner of speaking and several traditionally male hobbies so thats not the first time it's happened. And once again, if you feel inclined to give me a call on the phone to satisfy your own curiosity then let me know.

I'll leave you to figure out what had me snorting in my cola about this post of yours:

"That actually had me laughing when he told me it was
spelled wrong and that I need to consult MY dictionary."

It's kind of a cryptic puzzle, this one, a challenge familiar to Brits, Canadians, and others who read Harper's Magazine, maybe. And no honourable member of the cheap seats will assist you by offering further clues, let alone the answer, I'm sure.

"Someone breaks into your house with intent to rob you,
finds out that you're home when they thought you werent
and decides that killing you is better then having you
identify them. They then proceed to stab you repeatedly
with a sword."

How do you walk away from that? Huh?"

I dunno. But could I recommend that you consider the time-honoured saying: "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"?

(That's got me snorting too, and if you figured out the first riddle, you might know why. But I assure you, this is a tangent and not relevant to the subject under discussion.)

Now, it has me snorting for other reasons. I'm so entertained by this notion of someone breaking into my home armed with a sword. Has this happened to you frequently? But I digress again ...

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So ...

Someone breaks into your house with intent to rob you,
finds out that you're home when they thought you werent
and decides that killing you is better then having you
identify them. They then proceed to stab you repeatedly
with a sword."

How is your gun going to protect you from that? Eh?

Sorta like that one about getting whacked over the head with a 2x4 while walking down the street. How is your gun going to protect you from that?

I mean: unless you walk around the house with the loaded gun in your pocket -- and shower with your gun in a plastic bag around your neck. Eh? And I know, you could surely do that. But with you in the shower with water in your ears and all, I'd think that the sword-wielding burglar would just (a) take your stuff and leave, or (b) impale you right through the shower curtain. And wearing your gun in the shower does seem to me like a kinda weird thing to do, on the off chance that someone is going to break into your house and brandish a sword at you ... but that's just me.

Maybe we could have a competition for the most bizarre scenario that can be dreamed up for when having a gun in a plastic bag around your neck would save your life, and when it wouldn't do a damned thing ... and of course when it might actually be a bad thing to do. Like, when the burglar impales you on his/her sword through the shower curtain, and then takes your gun and goes and robs your neighbour with it.

Of course, come to think of it, why wouldn't that burglar-turned-robber have just brought a firearm with him/her in the first place? It's so easy for criminals to get guns (right?), that this would have to be one really stupid burglar to be burgling your house with some clunky great sword at the ready. I'd think. But that's just me.

.

Woman killed in home invasion identified - stabbed to death.

Here's a sensational Washinton City Paper article with heavy details on the sword-murder of a Loudoun County man. (Here is a shorter local paper version of the story.)

The key is to have a substantial chance of effectively fighting back, rather than a slim-to-none chance. Not all of us are strapping 19 year olds, large Englishmen, or ninja masters, who can dish out sauce for the gander.

And no, a firearm by itself is not a magic talisman that wards off ambushes by 2x4's. The ability to spot threats early comes with a defensive mindset, which would let you avoid problems before they happen. But sometimes problems will not let you avoid them.

Man Killed During Burglary Attempt

Woman kills armed attacker (click search, then click on the result with the same title)

I don't need to click on any of your links.

OF COURSE IT HAPPENS.

People get run down by cars far more frequently, might I confidently assert? Break their necks falling down those staircases? What lengths should we allow them to go to, what risk of harm to others should we allow them to create, in order to avoid those harms?

From one of your links:

At some point during the confrontation, police said the woman reportedly retrieved a semiautomatic handgun from a dresser drawer and shot one of the suspects a number of times. Police said the suspect died at the scene. Officers said the other suspect fled.

Now, are you going to tell me that if I wanted to spend the afternoon wandering around US news sites or interviewing US police officers on the phone, I wouldn't be able to counter with a story of someone who reached for the handgun in the bedside table and was shot dead by the hovering intruder? Someone who tried in some other way to draw on an armed intruder and was shot dead by the intruder in the process? Do you really not think all of this anecdote and counter-anecdote is as much of a waste of time as I think it?

Or someone who shot AN UNARMED AND NON-THREATENING INTRUDER dead when s/he could just as easily have walked out the back door? Or, lemme see, someone who shot HIS 12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER dead when she jumped out of the closet?

And let me reiterate that I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK who here or anywhere else might think that the unarmed intruder "deserved to be shot", because THAT OPINION is of the most supreme irrelevance. (Just as is any statement about the father's "responsibility" for the child's death.) Society long ago decided that no one who was not presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or grievous bodily harm to another person DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE SHOT, and that anyone who does shoot such a person is guilty of a crime. And society decided to take steps to avert the risk of such deaths occurring, which steps include laws prohibiting homicide and prohibiting a variety of acts that create risks of harm to other people.

(Here's a fun one: it's illegal to leave a hole in the ice unattended, in Canada. I'll bet it might be in a few of those northern ice-fishing states of the US, too.)

And I also don't give a flying fuck about any backwater US jurisdiction whose laws authorize anyone to kill a person who was NOT presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or grievous injury -- or require that only non-lethal force be used against a person not presenting such a threat. Such laws are so contrary to the accepted principles of rights and justice in modern, rights-based societies that they are of no more interest to me than a law that permits families to stone allegedly adulterous women to death.

And I invite anyone who does not share my opinion on that point to offer a demonstration of exactly how a law that permits someone to kill a person not presenting an immediate and unavoidable threat to his/her life is consistent with the Constitution of the United States, which says:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, I know all about how interpretations vary, and how the rest of us out here in the world regard "rights" as carrying with them just a bit more of a positive duty on the state to protect them than they may be regarded as carrying in the US. (And if jody is reading, could I ask that she spare me yet another pointless diatribe about how there is no duty on the police to protect anyone. I'm sure she still doesn't have a clue how irrelevant that is to anything I'm saying, but maybe she could just refrain anyhow.)

But essentially, if there were no law prohibiting homicide, and if the state could therefore not punish people who committed it, I'd say, from that foreign perspective of mine, that somebody who was murdered was being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", with the tolerance and thus implied approval of the state.

The rule against homicide simply cannot exempt certain victims without being a violation of due process and equal protection -- unless the state can justify that violation. Permitting self-defence to be offered as a justification to a charge of homicide is regarded as a justifiable exception to the due process and equal protection that the victim of a self-defence killing IS entitled to.

Permitting "he entered my property without my permission" to be offered as a justification for homicide is a mark of a sick society, in my humble and widely-shared opinion. But it ain't my business, so what the hell. And I don't expect anyone who does think that such a justification should be permitted to give a flying fuck about anyone else's opinion, I assure you.

But perhaps, rather than trading anecdotes and opinions, we could address some issues.

The issue seems to me to be (and spare me the 2nd amendment; you didn't raise it, and I'm not addressing it): does denying access to firearms unjustifiably interfere with the exercise of rights?

An assessment of the risks, to both society and individuals, that are inherent in both permitting and denying that access is certainly a relevant factor in assessing "justification".

But no mere assertion of a right is an answer to a claim that interference with the right is justified. Ever. Really. It isn't.

If it were, there would be no death penalty, right? No prisons even. Pretty much no laws or law enforcement at all. All anyone would have to say is "I have a right to liberty! Don't tell me I can't jaywalk."

WE MAY tell people that they can't do things, even if they have "a right" to do them.

The issue is virtually never whether there is a right to do something.
It is whether there is justification for interfering with the exercise of that right.

If we could some day actually address some of our minds to that issue, what fun we might have.

.

:hi:

I expected no intelligent, good faith discussion of the real issues, and I didn't get any.

No change there then. Have no expectations, be not disappointed.

It's early days on this one here, but I don't think I shall expect to be surprised.

.

"Or someone who shot AN UNARMED AND NON-THREATENING INTRUDER dead when s/he could just as easily have walked out the back door?"

if they've broken into your house, how many reasonable people would feel that the intruder didn't pose a threat?

that's kind of like referring to a "non-threatening rapist", and other such nonsense.

"if they've broken into your house, how many reasonable people would feel that the intruder didn't pose a threat?"

And your point is?

I have repeatedly paraphrased the standard wording of laws concerning the self-defence justification: if there is a reasonable belief that there is NO OTHER WAY of avoiding death or grievous bodily harm that is reasonably apprehended, then the use of force in self-defence is JUSTIFIED.

What is it about NO OTHER WAY that you don't understand?

"that's kind of like referring to a 'non-threatening rapist', and other such nonsense."

Well, you shore done got that "nonsense" part right, there.

.

"I have repeatedly paraphrased the standard wording of laws concerning the self-defence justification: if there is a reasonable belief that there is NO OTHER WAY of avoiding death or grievous bodily harm that is reasonably apprehended, then the use of force in self-defence is JUSTIFIED."

that I think you're paraphrasing the standard wording of laws in CANADA for self-defense. The majority rule in the US doesn't include the "NO OTHER WAY" bit. Let me summarize the majority rule in the US for you: In order to use LETHAL force, you must reasonably be in fear for your life or afraid that you will suffer grievous bodily harm. LESS THAN LETHAL force has a MUCH lower standard, namely that you must be attacked or reasonably afraid that you will be attacked. There is NO requirement that loss of life or risk of serious bodily injury will result for the use of LESS than lethal force. There are, of course, exceptions like DC, where if you are attacked you have a legal obligation to kill yourself for your attacker so that he doesn't hurt himself or break a fingernail when killing you. (just kidding, sort of, DC's self defense laws are unbelievably generous if you are the attacker and incredibly barbaric if you are the victim.)

"I think you're paraphrasing the standard wording of laws in CANADA for self-defense. The majority rule in the US doesn't include the "NO OTHER WAY" bit. Let me summarize the majority rule in the US for you: ..."

Yer problem here is that I have also cited and reproduced the law I then paraphrased. You just don't seem to be able to do that, do you?

Or seem able to answer the question about how the law you cite might be regarded as consistent with a constitutional right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process ...

You do know that the fact that something is set out in a law doesn't make that law constitutional, may I assume? Why just look at that other famous Texan law, the one about fancy sexual practices that got struck down boom by even your Supreme Court just last month.

"LESS THAN LETHAL force has a MUCH lower standard, namely that you must be attacked or reasonably afraid that you will be attacked."

Shore nuff, once again; whoever, do you think, might have said otherwise? Whoever, are you suggesting, isn't conversant with the concept of SELF-DEFENCE?

And where is your evidence that the first obligation is *not* to USE OTHER MEANS than force to avoid being attacked (or further harmed if one has been attacked)?

And I still don't see anything, even there, suggesting that the use of force in RETALIATION is permitted, do I? Are you aware of what the subject of this discussion is, just perhaps?

You keep yammering, I'll keep pointing and laughing.

.

"Anybody managed to find his/her jurisdiction's law on self-defence yet?"

Answer offered:
I offered three specific examples, two with verbatim quotes of the relevant statutes.

Some people are impossible to satisfy. In my experience with people like that in real life (not you, Iverglas, the internet isn't "real life"), those people who are never satisfied tend to have deep-seated psychological problems, generally stemming from things like a raging inferiority complex.

... how does that tune go ... "is making me ..." ... well, "sick" will do here.

"Anybody managed to find his/her jurisdiction's law on self-defence yet?"

That just wasn't the WHOLE question asked, now, was it?

Here's one bit of what you dug up; I emphasize the parts that echo what I've been saying all along:

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

Funny how that's pretty much exactly what MY law says, ain't it, then?

Reasonably apprehended death or injury, reasonable belief that there is no other means to avoid it ... it's all there. I see it.

Funny how it doesn't support what YOU've been saying at all, ain't it, then?

Me, I'm quite satisfied, thank you. Satisfied that your law DOES NOT PERMIT the use of violence IN RETALIATION against violence, and permits it only IN DEFENCE against violence.

If you're still unable to see the difference, and grasp its implications in this discussion (which you might want to make sure you've read the beginnings of ... if you're such a johnny come lately as you appear to be ...), then just ask.

.

please point to the part about the duty to retreat in the statute. It simply isn't there. Do you need me to find where you said it was for you? I have a fair bit of patience for children, drunks and the mentally handicapped, so it's not a problem if you need help, I'm used to it. In fact, I like being helpful.

I'm thinking we have a problem with terminology here. If a person punches another person, the punched person is allowed to hit him back until he feels himself to be out of danger. This is true even if the attacker was only going to hit him once, and the battery has already been consummated, it's still self-defense if it's in the same general time and place. It's only retribution if, for example, the victim leaves the area, and then comes back and hits the attacker. At that point it's NOT self defense, it's vigilanteism. Comprende?

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

Read the above passage carefully, trying to avoid using your fingers or lips.

Note the words "immediately necessary" in the above passage. Carefully read the passage in which those words appear: "physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force".

Explain, in your own words, what the words "immediately necessary" mean in that passage. Feel free to cite case law to support the interpretation you offer.

Note that this:

"I'm thinking we have a problem with terminology here.
If a person punches another person, the punched person
is allowed to hit him back until he feels himself to be
out of danger."

... is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- a correct paraphrase of what appears in the legislation quoted above.

If you like, treat this as a take-home exam or essay, and consult someone with appropriate expertise to assist you in understanding the difference between what you have portrayed the legislation as saying and what the legislation actually says. If presenting such a source as authoritative, please be sure to offer a description of the source's qualifications that will qualify that source as "authoritative".

For your further assistance, please note that this:

"It's only retribution if, for example, the victim leaves
the area, and then comes back and hits the attacker."

... is ALSO NOT -- repeat, NOT -- a correct paraphrase of what appears in the legislation quoted above.

For extra points, once you have understood and correctly explained the meaning of the legislation quoted above, you could explain why your alleged paraphrases of it are NOT correct. Me, I'm getting sick of doing this for you.

Penses-tu que tu vas comprendre, toi-même, un jour?

Or would you prefer to just keep on acting moronically rude?

.

"Anybody managed to find his/her jurisdiction's law on self-defence yet?"

TEXAS

§ 9.31. Self-Defense


(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:


(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:


(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or


(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:


(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.


(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:


(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person


(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

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


(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

§ 9.33. Defense of Third Person


A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:


(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.34. Protection of Life or Health


(a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

... the rest of the question, which everybody wants to keep pretending was never asked.

(For the first part of the question, which you seem for some unknown reason to think that all this cutting and pasting has answered -- how these provisions can conceivably be interpreted as permitting the use of force in *self*-defence (or defence of other persons, sure) where force is not IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect against an assault -- you may go to one of the many posts in which I have asked that question and respond there.)

§ 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.

The rest of the question being:

HOW DO THOSE PROVISIONS comply with the provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution of the US about the right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process?

Are you patriots really needing me to keep quoting what those amendments say, for you?

Or will you just keep on pretending that I never asked the question ...

.

Government actors....Government actors...Government actors....

How many times do I have to say it?

Under the 5th, the due process requirement was originally construed as applying only to the Federal Government. This didn't work out well, so in the 14th, they clarified it and extended it to the States, prior to the existence of incorporation.

In a self-defense situation, there is NO GOVERNMENT ACTOR. Oops!!!

.

who's going to help you out.
You see I'm from Texas, and I unlike yourself, know how to read these laws, and I know what the courts interpretations of these laws has been.

"where force is not IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect against an assault"

You see your argument in invalidated when you selectively did your own cut and paste. You should have included all of it "he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary".
Failure to include the pretext "he reasonably believes" leaves the statute open to interpretation such as yours.

In Texas, the law allows that; if your beating the hell out of me, and I pull a gun and shoot you, I will not go to jail, because I believed it was the only way to stop you from a. doing further harm to, or b. killing me.

It has already been to court twice (Houston and San Antonio), both times the law was upheld, and the shooter/victim went free.

This applies to both protecting property and life. It distinctly places the decision of the degree of force used in the hands of the victim of the crime.


HOW DO THOSE PROVISIONS comply with the provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution of the US about the right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process?

So how does that apply to the criminal taking my life or property without "due process".

First, there is nothing in either amendments that grants, implies or references a “right to life”.

5th - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14 th - No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The Fifth Amendment's second part relates to how the government conducts prosecutions with regards to trial proceedings, with “due process” being the trial. In other words the government cannot take your life (death penalty), your liberty (jail)or your property (government siezure) outside the parameters of existing legislation, without a trial, hearing or LEGAL procedure.

The Fourteenth Amendment was established to apply the 5th Amendment to individual states after the civil war to prevent individual states the ability to remain “slave states”.

SO if you want to keep quoting them wrong, go ahead. The amendments are restrictions on the goverment not individuals.

"You see your argument in invalidated when you selectively
did your own cut and paste. You should have included all of it
'he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary'."

I did no such selective anything, and you may therefore add that false allegation to the list of things you can try to stuff up your barrel.

I have repeatedly, over and over and over, referred to the requirement of REASONABLE BELIEF.

You, on the other hand, have said absolutely nothing about it:

"In Texas, the law allows that; if your beating the hell out of me,
and I pull a gun and shoot you, I will not go to jail, because I
believed it was the only way to stop you from a. doing further harm
to, or b. killing me."

You perhaps think that ALLEGING A BELIEF is the same as PROVING A REASONABLE BELIEF. Guess what? It isn't.

The reasonable belief must generally only be PROVED "on a balance of probabilities" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but IT MUST STILL BE PROVED.

So, no, the law does not allow you to do any such thing IF YOU DID NOT ***REASONABLY*** BELIEVE that IT WAS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY for you to do it IN ORDER TO AVOID DEATH OR INJURY. Forgive my paraphrase, eh?

Getting it yet? Feeling like addressing it yet? Or preferring to keep pitching the unfounded, and actually false, statements around?

"This applies to both protecting property and life. It distinctly
places the decision of the degree of force used in the hands of the
victim of the crime."

It distinctly does no such fucking thing. Beep. Perhaps you suppose that when a legislature used expressions in its legislation (particularly expressions that have time-honoured meanings in law) it just did so for the hell of it, just tossed 'em in without intending them to mean anything at all.

If we apply your interpretation, I'm left wondering what purpose the legislature might have had in mind when it used those expressions. None, so far as I can see. Here's another maxim for you: Le législateur ne parle pas pour ne rien dire. The legislature does not speak in vain. (It's not a maxim, per se, in English, but it does express some fundamental principles of statutory construction; if the legislature says something, it is presumed to have had a purpose for saying it, don't you think?)

If the legislature had not intended that a person claiming self-defence BE REQUIRED TO PROVE REASONABLE BELIEF that it was immediately necessary to use the force used, why in the bleeding hell would it have placed that requirement in its legislation?

"First, there is nothing in either amendments that grants,
implies or references a “right to life”."

Yeah. A statement that someone may not be deprived of something does not imply a right to it. Of course not.

"So how does that apply to the criminal taking my life
or property without 'due process'."

Gosh. Have you ever noticed how it's ILLEGAL for someone to kill or steal from you?

Kinda like how it's ILLEGAL for someone to kill or injure you UNLESS s/he had a REASONABLE BELIEF that it was IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to do so etc. etc. (Except in Texas and its fellow backwaters, of course, where it's apparently legal to kill people who are trying to steal your stereo. At least until someone notices the wee "equal protection" problem that raises.)

I thought we'd agreed that constitutions did not govern what INDIVIDUALS may or may not do. So why you'd ask that question is beyond me.

The government fulfils its duty not to permit the taking of life or property without due process by making it illegal to do such things, and applying other appropriate deterrents. At least that surely how I see it. I don't doubt that you don't. I don't doubt that you think that how governments decide what to prohibit by law is just some big random dice-roll.

And yeah, I don't doubt that you'll say that the government has no such duty. And I'll find that entertaining, and yes, be quite glad that I don't live where people think like that. Me, I can't think of any greater duty that the government could have to me than the duty not to allow other people to kill me with impunity. Of course, I do hold to the notion that governments have duties, specifically to individual members of the societies represented by the state governed by governments ...

"The Fifth Amendment's second part relates to how the government
conducts prosecutions with regards to trial proceedings, with
“due process” being the trial. In other words the government cannot
take your life (death penalty), your liberty (jail)or your property
(government siezure) outside the parameters of existing legislation,
without a trial, hearing or LEGAL procedure."

And here you quoted the "equal protection" bit, and then just ignored it.

So if the government enacts legislation that provides that it is a justification for the commission of bodily harm or homicide to prove that you had a "reasonable belief" that the person you injured or killed was under 4'2" (height-challenged people not being one of those "protected classes", I think), this would be constitutionally valid law?

"SO if you want to keep quoting them wrong, go ahead.
The amendments are restrictions on the goverment not individuals."

And if you want to keep pretending that I've said something I've never said, why you just have yourself a picnic. I'm not here to stop you, am I?

.