Great Great Great Grandson of Gun Control...

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Strong gun control effectivly enforced will lower the amount of firearms in circulation.

• 
  
  

So you're saying that when there's both the will and ability to accomplish something it can be accomplished? What other pearls do you have to offer us?

In the US, there is neither will nor ability.

[Cabbageleafbastard]

Not a kidnapper FLoW, hostage taker at most.

Personally I have found no sources that they were at any risk or had been threatened. Of course neither is necessary in most of the US for this type of defence to be legal.

The fact that they were taken hostage put them at risk, and when someone comes into your home without permission, naturally anyone would feel threatened. A persons home is protected by dozens of laws here in the US, and the minute he entered the home he was breaking the law. How many hostage-takers are good guys? Should he have waited until he committed violence to kill the guy?I live in Geoegia, and i think most people here would consider unlawful entry into a home a act of violence because it could quickly result in some act of violent behavior. When your family is at risk, you do what you need to do in order to protect them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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 is of no comfort to those who happen to be the unfortunate victims, like this particular couple.

Or like this 93 year old woman, who was attacked in her home, raped, strangled, and burglarized.

http://heraldbulleti...n/?state=taberU

Of course, since she wasn't actually killed, there are some who are probably relieved that she wasn't able to shoot the guy.

[lupis42]

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.

Right, but lowering the amount of firearms in circulation means taking them away from people, which is something most people in the US don't want.

Gun control cannot achieve the desired effect without that side-effect.

[Sci-2]

I live in Geoegia, and i think most people here would consider unlawful entry into a home a act of violence because it could quickly result in some act of violent behavior. When your family is at risk, you do what you need to do in order to protect them

Exactly. I do think the end of any human life is tragic, but there is a certain sense of relief that comes with knowing someone who would hold seniors hostage is no longer a threat to our communities.

[Seli]

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?

In that case: in my opinion it should not be legal to kill someone, ever, period.

It should not be punishable to kill someone under some circumstances though.

It is fairly simple. But perhaps it helps to have a police and legal system you can trust. Local exceptions (if I remember correctly) are broadly acting at an immediate threat to your life. Doing the same for someone else. Or acting while circumstances and state of mind mean that it is reasonable to go beyond a reasonable defence.

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?

Think broader, every single exception is another hole. The system is more robust when every single case is examined and judged on its individual merits.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In that case: in my opinion it should not be legal to kill someone, ever, period.

It should not be punishable to kill someone under some circumstances though.

What does that mean? It sounds like you're saying it should not be legal to shoot a guy as the only means of preventing a rape, but that you shouldn't be punished for it if you do. What does legality/illegality mean if it doesn't have to do with punishment?

It is fairly simple.

No, it is anything but simple. It is as if you don't like either option presented, so you're talking in circles to avoid taking a clear position.

Think broader, every single exception is another hole. The system is more robust when every single case is examined and judged on its individual merits.

But unless you have some somewhat clear standard, you have nothing with which to guide juries in their deliberations, and nothing to let people know if they ought to let their wife get raped rather than go to jail for murder.

[BarmyAlex118]

I am from across the pond ie UK were we have pretty strict gun laws in effect.

As far as i am a where is that the highest calibre of weapon you can own as a civilian legally is something for hunting dear in Scotland, as well as shotguns for game shooting and air pistols.

As an army cadet i was luckily able to shoot of 7.62mm rounds on full auto from a General purpose Machine Gun (Made me fell like a proper man :drool: ), however that was within cadets were we had full range safety and regular army guys on hand to help us with the weapon. Since leaving cadets i have genuinely missed being able to shoot something 5.56 or higher. So i can understand fully why most law abiding us citizens would be pretty pissed off if there full auto firearms were taken away, as it is a heck of lot fun to shoot on full auto.

Even though we banned the use of pistols in 1997 we still have regular shootings in London and other parts of the uk.

As an outsider commenting on the us gun control issue i have to say i side more with the those who are responsible gun owners following the law. I think there needs to be more education on the many different types of firearms and what the difference between and assault rifle and regular rifle as well as stricter gun control on those who could potentially go of the hinge ie possible mental health checks before buying a gun :dunno: .

[Penguin king]

So you're saying that when there's both the will and ability to accomplish something it can be accomplished? What other pearls do you have to offer us?

In the US, there is neither will nor ability.

I'd argue that The United states government does have the ability. Law enforcement has a great deal of control in most juristictions, and isn't particulary corrupt, and the second ammendment can be worked around if not outright appealed. Guns wouldn't disapear overnight, but the numbers in circulation would fall over time.

The will currently is lacking, but that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. Social attitudes change, sometimes quite rapidly. Attitudes towards firarms are no exception.

That is of no comfort to those who happen to be the unfortunate victims, like this particular couple.

Or like this 93 year old woman, who was attacked in her home, raped, strangled, and burglarized.

http://heraldbulleti...n/?state=taberU

Of course, since she wasn't actually killed, there are some who are probably relieved that she wasn't able to shoot the guy.

Events like that are certainly horrific, but that doesn't mean that they should be used to dictate social policy. Shark attacks are pretty horrible ways to die, but that doesn't mean that every swimmer needs to carry a harpoon gun for their own protection.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So i can understand fully why most law abiding us citizens would be pretty pissed off if there full auto firearms were taken away, as it is a heck of lot fun to shoot on full auto.

There are very very few full-auto firearms left in the US, and they are extremely difficult to acquire. Probably 99% of gun owners have never fired one.

I'd argue that The United states government does have the ability.

You would be wrong. They just tried to slightly tighten gun control and it went down in flames.

the second ammendment can be worked around if not outright appealed.

You can not "appeal" the constitution. Assuming you meant "repeal", that would require 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, along with 3/4 of all the state legislatures.

"Working around" the second amendment probably won't do you much good because every time a case gets tried in SCOTUS it ends up going in favor of more gun rights, not against.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

The will currently is lacking, but that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. Social attitudes change, sometimes quite rapidly. Attitudes towards firarms are no exception.

Which is the whole reason that there is a constitution in the first place.

[fuseprime]

All I know is this: If someone was ever dumb enough to break into my home, they will get shot. I have no idea if they are armed, if they want to rape my family, torture my family, or kill my family. How do you know the intruder in the OP wouldn't go back upstairs and kill the couple because they can identify him? You don't. I will not risk my life and the lives of my family, in order to preserve the life of an intruder.

Let me also make this clear. I'm not some "gun-ho!" asshole. The very last thing I want to do is kill somebody. Killing a person is a very serious thing, and it will change you. However, that would pale in comparison to my family being raped, tortured, or killed.

[BarmyAlex118]

If i know my history the 2nd amendment was created to allow local militias at the time to arm themselves in case of a British invasion. ( do correct me if i am wrong )

In Switzerland is a mandatory right for civilians to hold and be proficient with a rifle between certain ages due to the fact that they don't have a massive standing army, however in Switzerland they limit the amount of ammunition available to their citizens.

Instead of taking guns out of circulation why not keep records of the amount of ammunition sold, as if you don't have ammo your gun pretty much becomes and expensive club or wall decoration.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Events like that are certainly horrific, but that doesn't mean that they should be used to dictate social policy. Shark attacks are pretty horrible ways to die, but that doesn't mean that every swimmer needs to carry a harpoon gun for their own protection.

But its a pretty good argument not to ban swimmers/divers from using them.

[thecryptile]

If i know my history the 2nd amendment was created to allow local militias at the time to arm themselves in case of a British invasion. ( do correct me if i am wrong )

That's pretty much right, though self defense wasn't limited to foreign invaders.

Instead of taking guns out of circulation why not keep records of the amount of ammunition sold, as if you don't have ammo your gun pretty much becomes and expensive club or wall decoration.

Ammunition shortages are a reality in the US already, between the massive purchases by Homeland security and private hoarders, it is very difficult find many common calibers such as .223 and 9mm. The price has greatly increased as well. Many of my friends are getting into reloading because of shortages and price hikes.

But limiting ammunition harms the law abiding more than the criminal class, criminals fire fewer shots than law abiding citizens- the criminal doesn't go to the range or go hunting, he saves his ammo for his criminal activity. When I go to the range, I go through several boxes of ammo. A gang member might nurse his half a box of shells for years, never firing more than once or twice to murder or intimidate.

[Penguin king]

You would be wrong. They just tried to slightly tighten gun control and it went down in flames.

You can not "appeal" the constitution. Assuming you meant "repeal", that would require 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, along with 3/4 of all the state legislatures.

"Working around" the second amendment probably won't do you much good because every time a case gets tried in SCOTUS it ends up going in favor of more gun rights, not against.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok, so I sheepishly admit to a major the brain fart with the appeal/repeal confusion, but that aside you've kinda proved my point for me here. If the political will existed then the US government could have the second amendment removed from the constitution. The ability exists, but the will does not, which is exactly what i said in my previous post.

Which is the whole reason that there is a constitution in the first place.

I woud argue that's also the reason why there's an ability to amend said constition, and then repeal those amendments as the need arises.

[Penguin king]

But its a pretty good argument not to ban swimmers/divers from using them.

No, but if the number of swimmers dying from missuse of harpoons rose above the number of swimmers dying from shark attacks, and then the sharks evolved and started stealing harpoons and using them on swimmers then maybe it might be time to reconsider the whole harpoon isssue.

[Seli]

What does that mean? It sounds like you're saying it should not be legal to shoot a guy as the only means of preventing a rape, but that you shouldn't be punished for it if you do. What does legality/illegality mean if it doesn't have to do with punishment?

Everything?

But unless you have some somewhat clear standard, you have nothing with which to guide juries in their deliberations, and nothing to let people know if they ought to let their wife get raped rather than go to jail for murder.

Ah the first one is simple, don't use juries, use properly educated judges.

The second one as well, and it harkens back to the 'everything' bit above.

People are responsible for their actions, and should be willing to face the consequences of their actions. Making killing legal in some circumstances undermines that whole principle.

If we are not willing to go to jail, we should not kill. If we cannot convince the courts, or our peers, that we had a very good reason for killing someone, we should go to jail.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Everything?

Another non-answer.

Ah the first one is simple, don't use juries, use properly educated judges.

And what are you going to tell the judges the standard is? Or is every judge just going to decide whether or not they think it was justified without having been given any standard at all? Depends how they feel each day, huh?

If we are not willing to go to jail, we should not kill. If we cannot convince the courts, or our peers, that we had a very good reason for killing someone, we should go to jail.

"Just lay back and think of England", right?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Ok, so I sheepishly admit to a major the brain fart with the appeal/repeal confusion, but that aside you've kinda proved my point for me here. If the political will existed then the US government could have the second amendment removed from the constitution. The ability exists, but the will does not, which is exactly what i said in my previous post.

I woud argue that's also the reason why there's an ability to amend said constition, and then repeal those amendments as the need arises.

I suppose, theoretically, if 1/2 of the us population changed their minds about guns, then elected people nationwide specifically on that issue, keeping their minds changed that whole time, then this politicians kept their promises, and peoples minds stayed changed for the years all that would take, that it is technically possible. I think we'll have manned missions to Ganymede first, but you keep dreaming.

[Seli]

Another non-answer.

...

To me it is the core of a justice system.

But this is going nowhere expectations and values are too far apart, I bid you good night.