D.C. gun ban overturned! Now I want to buy one!

Great Debates
61

You know, I think this goes to the very heart of what the gun debate is really about: two irreconcilable worldviews. A traditional one, that although it highly values human life is nonetheless willing to say “under certain conditions, you can forfeit any consideration on my part, including respecting your life”. And a progressive one that holds human life infinitely precious, or nearly so, and above all else says that we must always value other human beings not matter who they are or what they do, simply because they are human.

While many anti-gun people may be motivated by a genuine belief that guns are simply a net loss to public safety, IMHO many are motivated by an abhorrence of the very mindset of the traditional view: that in certain rare instances, it’s ok to kill people without remorse. And worse still, believing that individuals rather than qualified experts have a right to make this decision. I have actually heard anti-gun people denigrate this as a form of low-grade sociopathy, as if gun owners were on a spectrum that ends with living in a bunker in Idaho, or committing a massacre.

62

I hate to re-hijack my thread ;), but I recall when I got an FFL in West Virginia about ten years ago, it required the Chief LEO to sign it stating that as far as he knew, you had no criminal history that should deny you an FFL.

Now, I don’t think that the D.C. Chief of Police will sign anything. It will take another case another five years to reach the Supremes to make him sign it. As I said, this doesn’t go far enough.

The only people I can see possibly being able to register handguns in D.C. (besides the handful already able) are those who currently live someone else, own a handgun, and then move to D.C. Current residents are screwed…

63

[QUOTE=Lumpy]
You know, I think this goes to the very heart of what the gun debate is really about: two irreconcilable worldviews. A traditional one, that although it highly values human life is nonetheless willing to say “under certain conditions, you can forfeit any consideration on my part, including respecting your life”. And a progressive one that holds human life infinitely precious, or nearly so, and above all else says that we must always value other human beings not matter who they are or what they do, simply because they are human.

While many anti-gun people may be motivated by a genuine belief that guns are simply a net loss to public safety, IMHO many are motivated by an abhorrence of the very mindset of the traditional view: that in certain rare instances, it’s ok to kill people without remorse. And worse still, believing that individuals rather than qualified experts have a right to make this decision. I have actually heard anti-gun people denigrate this as a form of low-grade sociopathy, as if gun owners were on a spectrum that ends with living in a bunker in Idaho, or committing a massacre.
[/QUOTE]

I think this is spot-on. There are parts of this country where people just don’t take any shit, and that’s all there is to it. You can rationalize it all you want, throw all the arguments in the world at them, but it doesn’t matter - the guys in the South and the West and parts of the Midwest (and other places) who have been raised all their lives with the idea that peoples’ land and peoples’ property mean something, that they’re not just things, that they represent peoples’ livelihood, and that a criminal who’s disturbing them is trampling on that livelihood and their peace of mind. These people are often descended from hundreds of years of homesteaders and frontiersmen who had to fight for their land and for their property, not just in America but even before then, in Scotland and Ireland and the Borderlands - people with centuries of the principle of “this is my village, community, home, etc, and you are NOT to fuck with it.”

This is definitely one of those things that you either “get” or you don’t.

64

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
I think this is spot-on. There are parts of this country where people just don’t take any shit, and that’s all there is to it. You can rationalize it all you want, throw all the arguments in the world at them, but it doesn’t matter - the guys in the South and the West and parts of the Midwest (and other places) who have been raised all their lives with the idea that peoples’ land and peoples’ property mean something, that they’re not just things, that they represent peoples’ livelihood, and that a criminal who’s disturbing them is trampling on that livelihood and their peace of mind.
[/QUOTE]

In addition, there are the people who were pacifists their early life, and never had the slightest interest in firearms, and then they discovered first-hand the evil that people can do to those who are smaller, weaker, and timid. And then they vowed never to be a victim again. Which is why I learned to shoot, and became a concealed carry holder.

Sadly, it often takes a tragedy before people “get it” that we’re each ultimately the greatest responsible authority for our own personal safety. And this isn’t just concerning firearms, it’s concerning attitude and being aware of your surroundings and the people around you at all times, keeping a state of relaxed awareness.

65

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
There are parts of this country where people just don’t take any shit, and that’s all there is to it. You can rationalize it all you want, throw all the arguments in the world at them, but it doesn’t matter - the guys in the South and the West and parts of the Midwest (and other places) who have been raised all their lives with the idea that peoples’ land and peoples’ property mean something, that they’re not just things, that they represent peoples’ livelihood, and that a criminal who’s disturbing them is trampling on that livelihood and their peace of mind. These people are often descended from hundreds of years of homesteaders and frontiersmen who had to fight for their land and for their property, not just in America but even before then, in Scotland and Ireland and the Borderlands - people with centuries of the principle of “this is my village, community, home, etc, and you are NOT to fuck with it.”

This is definitely one of those things that you either “get” or you don’t.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah…and don’t think you “get” it.

It was one thing for things to be as you suggest back in the frontier days. Times when there were no phones, no help to be had for hours or days and it was just up to you to defend yourself and your family and land. Along with those times came the old “frontier justice”. As a country we have roundly rejected that and live by the rule of law and not vigilante or gut reaction justice.

We benefit from society in many ways. Along with that come many restrictions. As more and more people live closer and closer together abiding by those rules become paramount.

I simply do not know where in this whole country it is deemed acceptable for the state to hand out capital punishment for someone stealing your TV. Nor have I ever seen it seriously suggested that it should be. Yet the Texas law essentially empowers just that. Worse, it makes the populace judge, jury and executioner. I am simply amazed that you seem to think it fine to put a bullet in someone who is walking out with a handful of your stuff. It is stuff…it is replaceable. A TV does not “mean” anything. A human life does.

I will venture a guess that you are an ardent supporter of the US Constitution and the rights granted to us therein. Certainly I have seen you argue passionately for your 2nd Amendment rights. Well, the 14th Amendment states the following (in part…bolding mine):

“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.”

Seems to me Mr. Horn deprived two men of their life and there was no due process. The state has essentially done an end run on the constitution allowing citizens to do what it cannot.

Certainly if you are in immediate danger and it is you or the other guy give him both barrels. But placing yourself in a situation to preserve $2000 of loot by shot gunning two people in the back?

Sorry, but I do not accept we need to be a country of frontier justice in order to preserve our “stuff”. Down your road lies chaos and our Constitution and other laws have generally agreed with that notion till this backtrack of Texas.

66

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Seems to me Mr. Horn deprived two men of their life and there was no due process. The state has essentially done an end run on the constitution allowing citizens to do what it cannot.
[/QUOTE]

There was due process. He was not indicted by the grand jury. That may not sit well with your beliefs, but it is certainly the case that Joe Horn was in serious peril until he was given official sanction for his actions. The state didn’t do an “end run”, the state applied its laws and determined that they were not violated. Unless, of course, you object to states passing laws in contravention of (your interpretation of) the Constitution, in which case there are a myriad of far more objectionable examples.

67

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
There was due process. He was not indicted by the grand jury. That may not sit well with your beliefs, but it is certainly the case that Joe Horn was in serious peril until he was given official sanction for his actions. The state didn’t do an “end run”, the state applied its laws and determined that they were not violated. Unless, of course, you object to states passing laws in contravention of (your interpretation of) the Constitution, in which case there are a myriad of far more objectionable examples.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

Two men were deprived of THEIR lives without due process. They did not get a day in court and then be found guilty and sentenced to death. They were shot with no judge or jury except Mr. Horn. I do not see how putting the guy who shot them up for indictment counts as due process for those who were shot (in fact it is due process for Mr. Horn).

The state has essentially allowed capital punishment, administered by its citizens, for an array of crimes which fall far short of capital offenses should the accused end up in court.

As for Mr. Horn being in serious peril I am not sure how you get that. He placed himself knowingly and with a lot of forethought in that position then shot two men in the back. I am not saying he was at no risk but c’mon… :rolleyes:

If there are other end runs on the Constitution by all means bring them up if relevant to this thread or start a new thread as you like.

68

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I disagree.

Two men were deprived of THEIR lives without due process. They did not get a day in court and then be found guilty and sentenced to death. They were shot with no judge or jury except Mr. Horn. I do not see how putting the guy who shot them up for indictment counts as due process for those who were shot (in fact it is due process for Mr. Horn).
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I’m personally failing to find pity for two illegal immigrant career criminals. Certainly you believe that you reap what you sow. You can’t expect to go looting random houses (in Texas no less) without eventually karma catching up to you.

I’m curious about a few things… Would you still disapprove of the situation if the neighbors had been home and killed the burglars themselves? Or do you consider that to be a deprivation of due rights as well?

What about self defense situations? Do you think people should hand over property without defending it?

69

[QUOTE=BrandonR]
Sorry, but I’m personally failing to find pity for two illegal immigrant career criminals.
[/quote]

If they were American citizens and career criminals you’d feel differently?

I’ll combine those two.

If in self defense of you or your family or another innocent by all means shoot the fuckers.

I think someone should opt for reasonable means to get away from the situation to safety and call the police. If you are confronted by the bad guys and the threat is immediate shoot the fuckers.

70

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
If in self defense of you or your family or another innocent by all means shoot the fuckers.
[/QUOTE]
But there is still no due process of law in that situation. According to you, it is still acting as an agent of the state to carry out capital punishment if there is a law allowing deadly force to protect life.

71

TO THE HIJACKERS:

What are your demands for the safe return of the thread. We can work this out. Nobody has to get hurt.

72

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
If they were American citizens and career criminals you’d feel differently?

[/QUOTE]
No, but they shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place. Rule #1 in my book is if you’re going to be an illegal immigrant in this country, you had better work rather than go around and commit crimes. :stuck_out_tongue:

73

[QUOTE=Hirundo82]
But there is still no due process of law in that situation. According to you, it is still acting as an agent of the state to carry out capital punishment if there is a law allowing deadly force to protect life.
[/QUOTE]

True except in those cases you are left with no option. Kill or be killed. With no other recourse the law does not expect you to just roll over and die along with your family. It is an extreme circumstance. Call it the ultimate mitigating circumstance.

However, if there is a reasonable route to avoid anyone getting killed than that should be the default option.

74

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
True except in those cases you are left with no option. Kill or be killed. With no other recourse the law does not expect you to just roll over and die along with your family. It is an extreme circumstance. Call it the ultimate mitigating circumstance.

However, if there is a reasonable route to avoid anyone getting killed than that should be the default option.
[/QUOTE]

But the problem with only allowing self-defense to prevent death is that it is difficult to know the intent of your assailant and by the time one is certain that they are trying to kill you it may be too late to prevent it, when it could have been prevented by acting sooner.

I’m sure most people would agree that using deadly force to prevent assault is acceptable when you reasonably fear for your life (ie an assailant coming at you with a blunt object), but where do we draw the line? Is it acceptable to use deadly force if your assailant is unarmed? If they are unarmed but much larger/stronger than you?

What about state laws that allow the occupant of a dwelling to use deadly force against someone who has broken into an occupied dwelling or to prevent someone from breaking into an occupied dwelling (ie Castle Doctrine)?

I agree that it is usually preferable to retreat from a confrontation rather than use force against your assailant, but how far should this be taken? There was a case in Massachusetts in 1975 where a woman and her children were hiding from her estranged husband in the basement of her house. He threatened to kill her and the children and started down the stairs, so she shot and killed him. She was convicted of manslaughter since she had not retreated as far as possible before shooting him (Massachusetts has since removed the “duty to retreat” in one’s own home). The perception in a court can be very different from your perception in a crisis, and that is why I don’t think a legal duty to retreat is defensible in many circumstances.

75

[QUOTE=jtgain]
I hate to re-hijack my thread ;), but I recall when I got an FFL in West Virginia about ten years ago, it required the Chief LEO to sign it stating that as far as he knew, you had no criminal history that should deny you an FFL.
[/quote]

Is that a West Virginia law? Because I didn’t have to do that. And everytime I renew all the Feds require is that I mail a copy of my renewal application to the Chief Law Enfocement Officer of the area my dealership is in notifying him that I’m renewing the FFL. He doesn’t have to sign anything or approve anything, he just has to know about it. (the CLEO in Wisconsin, by the way, is the Sheriff of the county. Don’t know who it is in W.V.).

76

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]

I simply do not know where in this whole country it is deemed acceptable for the state to hand out capital punishment for someone stealing your TV.
[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity, what level of violence would you find acceptable against somebody who was walking away with my TV?

What is a TV worth? How much pain and suffering can I justifiably inflict on said scumbag for attempting to run off with my property?

77

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I disagree.

Two men were deprived of THEIR lives without due process. They did not get a day in court and then be found guilty and sentenced to death. They were shot with no judge or jury except Mr. Horn. I do not see how putting the guy who shot them up for indictment counts as due process for those who were shot (in fact it is due process for Mr. Horn).

The state has essentially allowed capital punishment, administered by its citizens, for an array of crimes which fall far short of capital offenses should the accused end up in court.

As for Mr. Horn being in serious peril I am not sure how you get that. He placed himself knowingly and with a lot of forethought in that position then shot two men in the back. I am not saying he was at no risk but c’mon… :rolleyes:

If there are other end runs on the Constitution by all means bring them up if relevant to this thread or start a new thread as you like.
[/QUOTE]

These two men went swimming in a shark tank with sirloin speedos.

They met the shark, the shark won.

Capital punishment is, by its’ own definition something meted out by the state or its’ agents. This man on his own and within the bounds of the law (which is, assumingly the will of the people), shot and killed two men committing a crime which could potentially be answered with deadly force. What Argent Towers said is right on, if you’ll forgive the bad pun, target.

A short example:

Say I have a flat screen TV, that costs $2000 and my audio equipment costs, oh, say another $2000. I have a CD collection that’s worth $1000 and my wife’s jewelry is worth, oh, $10,000. I’m insured for the contents of my abode for $100,000 altogether. Some miscreant, rather than work and save and work and save as I’ve done, decides to kick in my window and take my stuff (including the jewelry). That’s $15,000 worth of stuff in roughly two trips, or one trip if you’re efficient.

With what I make, you’ve stolen the equivalent of 48 days worth of pay, or 384 hours of my life, dedicated to the things I want because I’ve worked hard to get them, and in seconds, you get to take not only my things, but the sense of security my wife and I share in our own home because YOU are a miserable scumbag douche who wants what I have, but doesn’t want to put in the work necessary to get it honestly.

IMHO, screw that. If I’m home and some malignant trash comes kicking in the front door of my neighbor to steal not his ‘stuff’ but his very sense of security, I’m damn well going to do something about it, even if I have to use deadly force. It’s the last thing I want to do, but I’m damn well not afraid to do it if I have to. We’re basically allowing criminals to hold us at bay because we can’t fight back with enough force to deter them until now, of course, if only in Tejas.

The laws don’t work to deter them. The prisons SURELY don’t work, nobody’s afraid to do time anymore. The cops can’t be everywhere and with the dwindling resources, there are bound to be less and less available officers to respond. That is if your door can withstand the kicking it’s getting for 3 to 7 minutes (on average) until they get there and decide that there’s nothing they can do. I’d rather my neighbor took up arms against the rise of the criminals in my name than to allow a criminal into my home and access to all of the things I hold dear.

78

[QUOTE=Hirundo82]
But the problem with only allowing self-defense to prevent death is that it is difficult to know the intent of your assailant and by the time one is certain that they are trying to kill you it may be too late to prevent it, when it could have been prevented by acting sooner.

I’m sure most people would agree that using deadly force to prevent assault is acceptable when you reasonably fear for your life (ie an assailant coming at you with a blunt object), but where do we draw the line? Is it acceptable to use deadly force if your assailant is unarmed? If they are unarmed but much larger/stronger than you?

What about state laws that allow the occupant of a dwelling to use deadly force against someone who has broken into an occupied dwelling or to prevent someone from breaking into an occupied dwelling (ie Castle Doctrine)?

I agree that it is usually preferable to retreat from a confrontation rather than use force against your assailant, but how far should this be taken? There was a case in Massachusetts in 1975 where a woman and her children were hiding from her estranged husband in the basement of her house. He threatened to kill her and the children and started down the stairs, so she shot and killed him. She was convicted of manslaughter since she had not retreated as far as possible before shooting him (Massachusetts has since removed the “duty to retreat” in one’s own home). The perception in a court can be very different from your perception in a crisis, and that is why I don’t think a legal duty to retreat is defensible in many circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

I agree there is a lot of gray area there. In the end a DA or court needs to decide how reasonable someone was in the use of deadly force and yeah, they do not always get it right.

As I mentioned in this thread (or maybe a similar one recently) I have twice been in a position in my life where, if I had a gun, I likely would have used it. I was that scared, that sure something very bad was about to happen to me at the hands of another (which I think would have been deemed ok legally on my part assuming I had the gun legally). But I didn’t and in the end I had to seek out other ways to get out of the situation and I did and no one was hurt.

I fully realize that not every situation has a happy ending and the unarmed person gets screwed badly. But in day-to-day life semi-violent encounters are fairly common and more often than not no one dies or is critically injured. If people have guns handy and their use is allowed I believe the bar to when people resort to lethal force lowers.

As to the woman you mention that seems like bullshit to me and a miscarriage of justice. She is in her house, protecting her children from a man who has promised violence storming around the house looking for them. I’d have shot him too if I had been her.

Which is to say I am not a pacifist. I do believe there are situations where deadly force is merited. I just think the bar to cross to use it should be very high and a last resort.

79

[QUOTE=wolf11469]
Just out of curiosity, what level of violence would you find acceptable against somebody who was walking away with my TV?

What is a TV worth? How much pain and suffering can I justifiably inflict on said scumbag for attempting to run off with my property?
[/QUOTE]

I see nothing wrong with a taser or pepper spray or even a baseball bat or tire iron (as long as you are not bashing the guy’s head in to kill him).

Gun advocates, in my experience, will say those are not powerful enough. You need “more”. Maybe the other guy has a gun or knife.

Well, maybe he does. If you go after the guy with your TV you are escalating the situation and putting yourself at greater risk. Even if you have a gun and shoot him he may have a gun and shoot back. You are rolling the dice to some degree.

In the end I guess you have to weigh your chances but I still maintain letting the guy go with the TV versus putting a bullet through his head is the preferable option.

80

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
The laws don’t work to deter them. The prisons SURELY don’t work, nobody’s afraid to do time anymore.
[/QUOTE]

This is nonsense.

If you abolished all laws tomorrow do you think crime levels would remain the same or do you think chaos would ensue? Many people do not commit crimes for fear of going to prison. And I doubt you will find anyone willing to do time because they are ok with it now. I have yet to hear any ex-con describe prison as a pleasant place that they are not overly concerned to go back to.