according to "how to own a gun and stay out of jail "1996 edition.
You cannot be held criminally liable for the damage caused by a stray legally fired bullet.
for example:
a cop fires his weapon at an armed suspect, misses and hits a bystander 200 yards away. The officer cannot be held criminally accountable for this.
He can and most likely will be held civilly liable.
What cite would be relevant here? I don’t argue beyond assumptions with cites usually because any debate that can be settled with a cite is not really a debate, just an exercise in information swapping. I assume that any good debate is based on REASONING, and as such the reasoning is usually not as obvious as a cite. (Note: cites don’t usually support anything other than the factual assertion being made, which must be relevant to be valid. So, if someone suggested to ban cloning of humans for reasons, they would lack a cite that proves their reasoning, or if they provided one, it would be someone else’s reasons).
Lest anyone be confused: A statement of fact is not the same as a valid conclusion based on valid assumptions and valid reasoning (the confusion enters when two terms of “proof” are used, one of an argument, one of a known fact). I could say that America has tens of thousands of unarmed people each year killed by guns (fact) with many more wounded. Then someone could also say it was their fault for not shooting first (reason). Then I could ask why or how this is valid (demanding a reason) or counter-assert that if we assume that if everyone shot first, then it might lead to more stray bullets being fired, or more problems with more guns being available to rob from people (reasoning, no cites for speculation).
The goal in good reasoning is not just validity, but soundness or convincibility. As such, cites often serve desperate arguments and bad reasons better than good ones. However, original assumptions can be aided by cites if relevant facts are asserted, but even that is not necessary if the assumption qualifies itself using the word IF. (The assumption of the OP that guns were dangerous to bystanders and that some people don’t care was mostly unchallenged, incredibly, after he used an extreme example—so, anyone reading the debate could have concluded that the majority here was of the same mindset—so the argument had a good set-up, without a shot being fired). This does not mean that cites are superfluous, it just means that one should use them to support relevant factual claims and not reasoning. Likewise, an argument is not refuted by cites, but is fully refuted by a counter-example (where an argument of the same form has true assumptions and a false conclusion).
In case anyone was wondering, my argument was that guns were defective, shooters and sellers were liable, needed insurance, and/or ammo needed to be taxed (to help compensate crime victims) and that America’s gun-love does not dodge a crime problem but enforces or creates one, and that the prison-loving NRA is a den of duplicity about freedom, and that people who are thrilled to carry guns are the real problem, because we can’t make any moral assumption about why anyone carries a gun, because anyone could be a potential criminal. In other words, we only assume that if someone is empowered by hiding a gun on them, then they are a potential eager shooter, and not only is this a criminal mindset, but a dangerous one from a bystander’s perspective. Any argument about intention is post hoc and is worth less than a bandaid.
Summary: A valid argument can be unsound/unconvincing, but no sound/convincing argument can be invalid.
I should have provided this cite when I made the assumption that guns were defective machinery.
Translation: “I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
You’ve made many claims in this thread, sir. Surely you can find SOMEthing to justifiy them if they have any merit.
And be it the cop or a civilian, first an investigating team a trial jury will weigh the circumstances of the shooting insofar as civil liability. As was mentioned earlier, the jury may take a different view of liability if in the same situation a the person gets off two rounds vs. he empties a 15-round clip and reloads.
jrd
Brian: nice definition. Unless you subscribe to the theory that all reality is subjective, and therefore there are no facts per se but merely each individual’s subjective interpretation of reality, an argument still needs to have some grounding in reality. Is it truly a debate to argue over how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin?
Human beings reason, and bring along with it their prejudices, reinforced not only by their own personal life experiences (which may or may not be what the majority of other people experience), but also influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by the people in their life. Like parents, teachers and such. I’m just as guilty of this as the next human being.
To say that a reasoned argument, as opposed to a factual argument, can be flawed, is well within reason.
Factual arguments can be flawed as well, but they have a tendency towards very short half-lives, as scientists just love to punch holes in other people’s work.
When scientists conduct research, they use the scientific method, which, at its best, makes no (or very damned few) assumptions, uses rigorous testing and data collection techniques, has a limited and predefined objective, quantifiable variables, etc.
In other words, it goes out of its way to divest the humans (and their concomitant errors) from the process of factual discovery. It doesn’t always succeedd, but it does try.
Your “reasoned” argument is not based upon reality, but upon your own experiences, or those of others whose opinions and words you respect.
I do not claim or pretend to be a scientist. But I know a load of horseshit when I smell it, and don’t need a PhD. to know that it stinks to 99.99999>% of human beings. And buddy, as I read your drivel, I was holding my nose and my eyes were watering from the reek!
God (and most of this meassage board) knows that I am not the most dispassionate of people where certain subjects are concerned. :rolleyes:
But the rational, factual, analytical thinkers on this board have taught me (by kind example and humiliating flame alike) how to be a little more distant, and thus more impartially objective in the pursuit of knowledge (fact) and the eradication of ignorance.
I often semi-joke that “The sound you just heard was my foot being forcibly extracted from my mouth. Get used to it.” It’s usually because I relied upon a “reasoned argument” where someone else was armed with facts, and they had just burst my bubble.
If you want some facts concerning guns, availability, crime rates, laws, prosecutions, etc., a simple search of this board, this forum, will arm you with enough raw data to keep you too busy to post for a month. Study it and draw your own conclusions. Then come back and make a reasoned argument at least supported by fact.
Because until you can support your assertions on some sort of factual basis, your “reasoned arguments” will rapidly evaporate in the cold, hard light of factual reality.
From the link Little Child provided…
The proposition is “Are stray bullets fired in self defense my responsibility?” This has degraded into you ranting about guns being “defective” even when they do exactly what they’re supposed to do, and guns being “tools of the oppressors”.
We have attacked this proposition with facts.
Now you will defend this proposition with facts.
According to the rules of a “formal contest”, inability to provide defense results in a loss. Are do you want to debate the rules of a debate? Because, I assure you, a “formal contest” involves rules… rules which exclude the use of opinionated conjecture to debunk facts.
I repeat, guns are a potentially defective security device or machine by definition if one falsely assumes they are “designed” and manufactured to prevent crime and injury, because they also happen enable crime and injury (the circular logic is that if one should be armed it is to protect oneself against another gun–a manufacturers win-win, the public’s tax loss-loss).
Two things here: examine all countries where guns are owned but regulated and you will see much lower crime and much less prisoners than the US. Also, look up the definition of “function” in algebra, and see that it does not apply to an equation with more than one output from the same input. A gun can serve two purposes, offensive and defensive, but this is what makes it defective. The same shooter may begin by defending, then becomes the attacker, either in the same incident or not. This idea of defect is based on logical reasoning, which some people say is not a fact, which is true because it is a definition. Some have even demanded cites define the terms. The terms I use are for me to define, and for you to refute.
By the way, logic is the basis which also enables the scientific method itself (in case anyone forgot). Science does not pretend to accurately measure or describe human social and legal relations, and this is either a bluff or sheer misinformation.
I do not recall using the phrase, “tools of the oppressors” anywhere. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. If this is the case, then that would be a deliberate misquote and shows the depraved level of discourse here on this thread.
Technically, the question of the OP is not a proposition, but even if we assume it was, the debate was about responsibility. Legal responsibility begins with cause and blame, not intention unless specified in the law. Cause and blame are featured in lawsuits everywhere are obsessed with product defects and false claims made by manufacturers.
Demands for unspecified cites is the most desperate tactic. A cite for what? (this is rather funny actually, asking for a cite without saying for what.) I noticed that more than one poster alludes to unsupported claims and/or assertions made by me? What claims? What assertions? Did I say guns were defective and people who conceal them illegally are dangerous? Yes, this is by definition of terms. What else? I made several proposals, several observations, several interpretations. What claims? Did I say that this or that “causes” certain behavior? No, (but I think that is what people fear I said, which is noted as a psychological state here). Did I mistate a statistic? No. Or quote someone without a cite? No. Did I make wild assertions such as, that the NRA was run by card-carrying Nazis? No. Everything was either terms or opinions and people can’t deal with it with logic or reasons, so they pretend it needs a cite. I rarely argue with statistics, that is how high-schoolers practice their technique (Yes, stats are fine and good, but do not prove a reasoned argument, merely support a statement).
What a false sense of security it must be to find a politially loaded study somewhere and “cite” it so one can pretend that their self-interests and biases and emotions are logical by default.
Just curious here. Why is that Brian’s opinions, feelings and stereotyping are logical and educated and therefore fact, not requiring any supporting information, and everyone else’s opinions, feelings, and… no, no stereotyping, are simply illogical, uneducated, insecure outbursts made in desperation? I especially enjoy the statement in which I learned that I am a danger to society and a potential criminal. Oops…there I go again thinking I wasn’t an uneducated redneck. Guess I better keep my unstable comments to myself.
Brian:
Explain Mexico, Britain and Australia, Russia and Colombia. Lesser rates of inprisonment perhaps, but higher crime rates all-around, and all have much more stringent gun-control laws than the U.S.
In fact, they all have some of the most stringent gun-control laws on the books, compared to anyplace else in the world.
Rationalize that.
While you’re at it, explain Switzerland… I’m sure you are aware of their gun laws.
Nope.
But I often see NRA folks make this reference. I once tried searching, but about all I could find was more NRA interpretations of what you are referring to. A little biased, I must say. 
I gave up.
Oh yeah, I did see something about people being required to keep guns. To compensate for the tiny army, I assume. Nothing at all about flying bullets, though. 
Switzerland has a pretty high standard of living, doesn’t it? I mean, a low incidence of poverty? And a commie sort of govt?
…
Ok, I’ll be honest. You guys are always throwing up Switzerland as some kind of “proof”. Totally different society, different laws, different situation. Zero point zilch to do with the problems here in the US.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, sort of. We see the wider proliferation of guns and see that the place isn’t immediately overrun by anarchy. Then we look at other places (such as the countries that my dear colleague ExTank pointed out) and see strict gun control, yet more crime.
The proof is thusly:
-High Gun Control does not necessarily contribute to Low Crime Rates.
I do not see how that is too difficult of a statement.
Mr. Bunnyhurt…
The definition of “defective” is (abridged) “not working”. Guns are designed to shoot bullets. As a means of making them work better, some are designed to be smaller, lighter, more accurate, etc. but the basic idea remains the same.
The only way a gun can be defective would be if it DID NOT shoot.
Given that this has been explained to you several times already, I can’t understand why you insist on pursuing this line of “reasoning”.
I repeat… find some facts, Little Child. Because so far you have none.
Tank and Spoofer just offered up claims and assertions without one cite between them! Wait, I won’t even give them the overt satisfaction of demanding one since I know they got it from an NRA publication, perhaps along with a free set of bible tapes read by Charlton Heston.
Tank, Australia has a high personal assault rate, with fists and such, much higher than the US, and this has nothing to do with guns, offense or defense, thank goodness, and besides, Australians have plenty of guns, proving my point obversely. (But I can see where the NRA would want to use this statistic after first spreading the rumor that they tried to ban all guns). They have lower homicides, rapes, and robberies, and break-ins of homes and businesses are about the same or higher. I think England is much safer than Australia in this regard. I would like to see why you think England is so crime-ridden. Pick-pockets? Also, I can see where personal assaults is favoring your argument here, but in an odd way, because they happen so frequently and if everyone had a gun they’d probably have a much higher rate of crimes that are facilitated by guns. I’m thinking that you are assuming that if everyone has a gun on their hip, then nothing bad happens, but I have no idea where you imagine this to be true.
As for Russia and Colombia (which is in a civil war), these are where you get into real problems. They have gun laws on paper but do not enforce them equally because of corruption and lack of paperwork traditions. So, that leaves you to free to claim their control system causes crime. But, this crime is caused by not enforcing gun laws, and makes my point instead again, which is that guns facilitate crime, not prevent it.
As for Switzerland, this is utterly ridiculous. They control guns out the yin yang. Hell, they issue guns and the citizens don’t even own them. And the guns are not pistols, with few exceptions. This is like saying the American military and local police have less crime because of guns, a nonsensical and crazed argument, but what are we to expect from people that ridicule reason? Also, Switzerland has free education, free health-care, and free abortion clinics. Then this must also mean that free abortions prevents crime (not a joking matter, it actually does according to many studies).
Spoofer,
What if you bought a pepper spray that sprayed “pepper spray,” but it didn’t cause anyone to stop raping you. That would be a defective product, since it is sold as a repellent, not as a specific grade or quality of pressurized solution. Remember, defect is all in the mind (no pun necessary).
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
See, Little Child, we didn’t bother providing cites (but I will, just as an Olive Branch) because you’ve yet to do so. The ball’s in your court, and has been since you first started spouting nonsense. “I won’t provide a cite 'cuz you didn’t either!” doesn’t cut it, because YOU started with the claims, YOU back up your words. WE’RE not going to put inordinate amounts of effort into debunking your claims until YOU put some effort into backing them up.
Now this is utterly ridiculous. You’re saying guns are “defective” because they don’t make the owner utterly invincible.
“Protection” is not absolute. Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense can tell you this.
Tell me, how often does a shot of pepper spray to someone’s face fail to succeed? Please, provide some NUMBERS, some FACTS to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
Now, on to crime stats in other countries…
The latest data in Australia is dated 1995. So I’m far more than willing to accept that this isn’t entirely accurate. However, it helps to demonstrate the point…
This site (warning: In Acrobat Reader format) lists the crime statistics in Australia from 1991-1996. In the '95-'96 year, there were 111,379 assaults reported and 14,655 robberies reported. That’s 689.12 per 100,000 people (adding up assaults and robberies).
This site lists the crime statistics in America. While it lumps ALL violent crime together (instead of listing them as “Assaults”), it reports that there were 685 “violent crimes” per 100,000 people committed.
In other words, the total crime rates (not counting homicides) was about equal. Including murders, you get 1.99 per 100,000 in Australia and 21.6 per 100,000 in America… a vast discrepancy in murders, yes, but not throwing the overall statistics too far off.
In other words, Little Child, this destroys your notion that Australia has “much lower crime” than America.
I’d go find citings for the other countries, but this post is long enough as it is.
What does this prove?
GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME.
Keep in mind that the PDF from Australia says that crime had been climbing for the five years prior to the report, while the stats in the US show crime DROPPING sharply.
Ball’s in your court again, Little Child.
The UK does appear to have higher crime rates in several categories, but in terms of gun violence they’re not even in the same ballpark:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_810000/810522.stm
Colombia is in the midst of a civil war.
Because there are less guns.
The reason comparisons are made 'tween the US and other countries (such as England, Australia, etc.) is NOT to compare “gun crime”, but to compare CRIME IN GENERAL. The fact that there’s not much differential in crime 'tween the US and England, Australia, etc. indicates that a lack of guns won’t stop crime, it just means that criminals find some other way to commit crimes.
Crime levels are products of economic and social factors more than anything else, NOT what weapons are available.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/sec1.html
Read it and weep. Notice the bar graph near the bottom, with assualts being highest, and breakins being also high.
Your own claims that America has 11 times the murder rate is astonishing since you are trying to establish a link between guns and less violence. Simply astonishing. But, for people who don’t value reason, anything is possible.
Protection is not absolute. An armed society is an admission of failure, not success. Your basic assumption here is that people are bloodthirsty. I think you are projecting your own attitude here.
As far as defects go, you have mistaken a functional defect for a product defect. Ladder companies get sued all the time, not because their ladders are broken, but because they are unsafe when someone uses them as they are designed to be used, too tall maybe, too narrow, maybe, but not broken.
I did not bring up Australia, you and Tank did. Don’t blame me for lack of cite, I don’t try to deny the obvious logic. You have failed to show that Australia and England have more violent crime that could be prevented with more guns, and even proved the opposite. The NRA sucks because they go around and spread the lie that guns are banned in Europe and elsewhere when they are not, they are merely regulated so they don’t waste their money on expensive homicide cases and prison space. The NRA forgot to mention that spending numbers on incarceration and adjudication of crime.
Bunny, try here
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html
Neither are NRA sites, simply unbiased studies that include foreign countries, loaded with facts and supporting material. For those reasons alone, I doubt you’ll go to either and if you do, will continue to spout about how it’s meaningless statistics.
Switzerland by the way, sells handguns to any citizen without a criminal record. Not an opinion, just a fact.