Great Great Great Grandson of Gun Control...

[Seli]

Well, can you answer the question I posted to Fragile Bird? What would it take for the victims to be justified in killing?

In this case? Not enough information, so many factors that could influence it.

In general, immediate threat at a level equal to lethality. Or a disturbed state of mind by the situation.

[The Progressive]

I really don't have a problem with eligible gun owners having guns and using it for self defense in their house. I just want the guns and ammo traceable; and negligence along with illegal transactions should be severely punished.

[Sci-2]

I really don't have a problem with eligible gun owners having guns and using it for self defense in their house. I just want the guns and ammo traceable; and negligence along with illegal transactions should be severely punished.

I think I can get behind that, though negligence is sort of a grey area right? I mean if someone breaks into your house or car and steals your gun does that count as negligence?

I've told my getting carjacked story on the board before, so I'm not going to rehash that. But if me or my friend had had a gun in that situation it's likely we might have used it. (Personally I don't know for sure I would have - I can't imagine taking a life so I'm not trying to act like an internet tough guy.)

It's just odd for me to see people saying that [the] pensioner should be charged with a crime. When you're a situation like that, and it seems someone could kill you or your loved ones, it's not easy to think "well maybe this will turn out okay if I do nothing."

[lupis42]

And in terms of pov, I read a lot about how teachers should be carrying guns in the class room. The congressman involved, whoever he was, was in this training course, knowing what was going to happen, a gun owner who I'm sure shot off his mouth about how anyone with training would stop a gunman from killing students, and there at the training session under absolutely no real life pressure, shoots the teacher instead of the intruder. For some reason I was thinking this story would never be mentioned by one side in these threads, not even as a rallying for training. In real life, one might also expect students will get shot too by well meaning gun toters.

I haven't actually read the story, so I may be a bit off base here, but training sessions are usually constructed specifically to simulate or exceed the level of pressure and confusion that would be faced in real life. That's... well, that's kind of the point of training: to prepare for real life. It would much odder if nobody screwed up a decision like that in training.

[Seli]

...

It's just odd for me to see people saying that [the] pensioner should be charged with a crime. When you're a situation like that, and it seems someone could kill you or your loved ones, it's not easy to think "well maybe this will turn out okay if I do nothing."

I cannot speak for others but for me it is basically because, as described by the original source posted here, that was not the case.

Meanwhile, the elderly couple remained in their bedroom for four hours while Long wandered through the home, apparently gathering supplies for yet another escape.

Finally, Jerome Mauderly decided enough was enough, grabbed his shotgun and shot Long once. Carolyn Mauderly called 911 at about 2:11 a.m. Tuesday. A responding trooper found Long face down in the Mauderlys’ kitchen; neither Jerome nor Carolyn were injured.

To me that does not read like someone scared, it does not read like it was reasonable to fear for their life, it does read like a person was killed out of irritation, killed in cold blood.

Of course that might be an artefact of the source trying to portray the shooter as calm and in control (which seems to be the ideal of self-defence enthusiasts). But other news sources I looked at told approximately the same story.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In this case? Not enough information, so many factors that could influence it.

I'm asking generally, since it would be nice if victims knew what the legal standard was before they acted.

In general, immediate threat at a level equal to lethality.

So you're only justified in killing if you believe your life is at stake?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To me that does not read like someone scared, it does not read like it was reasonable to fear for their life, it does read like a person was killed out of irritation, killed in cold blood.

Well, I think there are two ways to view that.

One is that you can never be sure in such a situation that you won't be killed, and the window to protect yourself may be limited. If you believe that you or someone else may be killed or otherwise suffer a level of harm you are unwilling to accept, and that you may lose your opportunity to prevent that if you don't take action, then the logical choice is to kill the person now before they decide it may be in their best interest to kill you. After all, you are in their power.

The second way is that being kidnapped/held hostage alone is such a violation of rights that it justifies killing the person holding you. That's my POV, for what it's worth, although I think the first option above may well be what motivated these people.

[thecryptile]

I really don't have a problem with eligible gun owners having guns and using it for self defense in their house. I just want the guns and ammo traceable; and negligence along with illegal transactions should be severely punished.

Your hero Obama could start by enforcing existing federal gun laws. Why doesn't he do that? The number of people prosecuted for lying on NFA paperwork is shockingly small, why doesn't he commit to prosecute everyone who lies on their federal paperwork? That's something that could be done without trampling the Constitution or hassling law abiding gun owners.

Instead, he bans the import of antiques knowing that many of his supporters are too dense to realize that a WWI or WWII vintage rifle isn't going to be a crime gun.

[Seli]

So you're only justified in killing if you believe your life is at stake?

No, that is not enough.

As I said: In general, immediate threat at a level equal to lethality. Or a disturbed state of mind by the situation.

Or basically, killing someone is never automatically justified and there are no quick and easy rules that apply. Of course it might be deemed an acceptable action in hindsight and upon examination.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, that is not enough.

As I said: In general, immediate threat at a level equal to lethality. Or a disturbed state of mind by the situation.

Okay, so the prospect of being raped wouldn't be enough, because it isn't lethality?

Or basically, killing someone is never automatically justified and there are no quick and easy rules that apply.

You are talking about prosecuting someone for shooting their kidnapper, and refuse to give a standard that will let them know the circumstances under which they won't go to jail for doing so?

[lupis42]

Instead, he bans the import of antiques knowing that many of his supporters are too dense to realize that a WWI or WWII vintage rifle isn't going to be a crime gun.

Not to mention that most people probably don't realize how restricted imported semi-auto firearms already are (Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 922®, for example).

The things currently being targeted are 50+ year old bolt action rifles of primarily historical interest.

[lupis42]

Okay, so the prospect of being raped wouldn't be enough, because it isn't lethality?

Also, presumably, the threat of being tortured, mutilated, or forcibly administered highly addictive drugs would not qualify?

[Ser Greguh]

Once again, I am struck by just how different the worlview of different people can be. My goodness. How can anyone not applaud the actions of this pensioner? To paraphrase Terry Pratchett quite badly, and completely out of context, "This is a Worlde gone Madde".

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that not everyone gets a stiffy at the thought of the application of vigilante justice? To me it bespeaks a Wild West mentality, and some people feel that the Wild West was an anthropological disaster that our society is still recovering from.

I'm not necessarily saying this particular shooting was unjustified, just saying that any outcome that results in the taking of another human life is a tragedy, and that it can only really be justified when the only alternatives are outcomes of equal or greater tragedy.

[Seli]

Okay, so the prospect of being raped wouldn't be enough, because it isn't lethality?

Read the whole line, it cannot be that difficult. That is not what I am saying.

You are talking about prosecuting someone for shooting their kidnapper, and refuse to give a standard that will let them know the circumstances under which they won't go to jail for doing so?

It is in my eyes a lot better than a system where people can rule-lawyer themselves to a position where they can kill with impunity. So yes of course, you always keep the option of prosecution.

Of course there are proper get-out-prosecution cards in the process.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Read the whole line, it cannot be that difficult. That is not what I am saying.

I did. You said "lethality", which rape is not, or "disturbed state of mind", which is so vague as to be meaningless. Why not just answer the question directly? Do you think it should be legal to kill someone if necessary to prevent yourself or someone else from being raped? It's a straightforward question. Or are you saying it is not okay to shoot someone to prevent being raped, unless you are really, really upset by it, in which case it is?

It is in my eyes a lot better than a system where people can rule-lawyer themselves to a position where they can kill with impunity.

Because you're worried about people deliberately having themselves kidnapped and threatened with rape, just so that they can kill the kidnapper/rapist?

Do you really think this is common?

[lupis42]

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that not everyone gets a stiffy at the thought of the application of vigilante justice? To me it bespeaks a Wild West mentality, and some people feel that the Wild West was an anthropological disaster that our society is still recovering from.

I'm not necessarily saying this particular shooting was unjustified, just saying that any outcome that results in the taking of another human life is a tragedy, and that it can only really be justified when the only alternatives are outcomes of equal or greater tragedy.

But nobody, at least in this thread, is saying that vigilante justice is what happened or is laudable here.

That someone died is tragedy, that the innocent victim lived and the perpetrator died is nevertheless preferable to the other way around, and the reason the pensioner's actions are described as laudable is that he faced a choice and took action to prevent the greater tragedy. Now we can agree or disagree within this principle, on what the standards should be when making that choice, but I share some incredulity at the thought that some people view "perpetrator death" as not inherently preferable to "innocent victim death".

[Penguin king]

I really don't think a case where a legally owned firearm has been taken and used to shoot a police deputy and hold an elderly couple hostage is a great argument for loose gun control.

The pensioner was probably justified in his actions given that his life was under threat from an armed intruder, but that doesn't change the fact that in a country with stronger gun control laws, the convict would never have been able to get his hands on such a deadly weapon in the first place.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The pensioner was probably justified in his actions given that his life was under threat from an armed intruder, but that doesn't change the fact that in a country with stronger gun control laws, the convict would never have been able to get his hands on such a deadly weapon in the first place.

Although your average criminal armed with a knife or whatever is likely going to have just as much of a practical advantage over an elderly couple.

[lupis42]

I really don't think a case where a legally owned firearm has been taken and used to shoot a police deputy and hold an elderly couple hostage is a great argument for loose gun control.

The pensioner was probably justified in his actions given that his life was under threat from an armed intruder, but that doesn't change the fact that in a country with stronger gun control laws, the convict would never have been able to get his hands on such a deadly weapon in the first place.

That's by no means certain at all, and why places like Mexico get brought up as examples of countries with strong gun control laws by opponents of same.

A quick Google search, for example, shows a fairly high rate of articles about thefts from police, both of duty weapons and from evidence stores. Not sources generally targeted by gun control.

What I think you're trying to argue is that if there were 'fewer guns in circulation', the convict would not have obtained one, but that is a massively different premise.

[Penguin king]

Although your average criminal armed with a knife or whatever is likely going to have just as much of a practical advantage over an elderly couple.

Your average criminal is much more likely to rob a home when the owners are away than to hold a couple hostage. Home invasions for reasons other than burglary are extremely rare occuances.

That's by no means certain at all, and why places like Mexico get brought up as examples of countries with strong gun control laws by opponents of same.

A quick Google search, for example, shows a fairly high rate of articles about thefts from police, both of duty weapons and from evidence stores. Not sources generally targeted by gun control.

What I think you're trying to argue is that if there were 'fewer guns in circulation', the convict would not have obtained one, but that is a massively different premise.

Any law is only as good as it's enforcement. Mexico has a high rate of corruption. It's far more than just their gun conrol laws that get a blind eye turned towards them. Strong gun control effectivly enforced will lower the amount of firearms in circulation.