If someone walks up to you and demands your wallet, and you shoot him in response, you have committed manslaughter.
If someone walks up to you, draws a gun on you, and then demands your wallet, you would be perfectly justified to shoot him in response. But in that situation, he’s already got his gun drawn before you do, and so he’s probably also going to get his shot off before you do.
And even if you both end up getting shot (whoever shoots first), the most likely outcome is that you both bleed to death before the ambulance gets there, and you still haven’t managed to save your life.
The only way you end up saving your life with a gun, without committing a heinous crime yourself, is if you can draw, aim for a very small instant-kill target, and pull the trigger before your assailant can pull the trigger on the gun he’s already got drawn and aimed, anywhere on a fairly large target.
WRONGO! If someone demands your wallet, they are not threatening to give you a wedgie. They will threaten to shoot you or stab you. You shoot first and kill them, it is self defense.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
If someone walks up to you and demands your wallet, and you shoot him in response, you have committed manslaughter.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t that be situational? What if a body builder type weighting 300 pounds of pure muscle walks up and demands the wallet of an 80 pound teen age female? I’d say that it would depend on the threat…does the person being threatened think that the threat is credible and could cause them sever harm or even death?
Simply being unarmed does not constitute no threat…and you can’t categorically say that shooting someone who is demanding your wallet is always the wrong thing or even illegal (i.e. that it always constitutes ‘manslaughter’). Right?
Not that I think this silly digression about situational instances of when it’s ok to use a gun or not ok really is advancing the discussion here, but figured I’d ask.
I would like any cite from a noted professional that it is practical to draw and do a CNS shot when you are at gun point.
Adrenaline dumps pretty much negate any fine motor controls.
Or heck anyone who recommends trying to draw a firearm at all when at gun point.
Pistols are pretty iffy on head shots even with aimed fire, bone is quite good at making bullets do odd things and that tiny little core is a very very small target.
To avoid future frustration, read the post I was responding to. He claimed that the right to bear arms transcended even the constitution and that it was impossible for the people to nullify that.
If we are, then you can just throw out the constitution and get all the guns you want. If you think you need to have your bunker prepared for that likely event, then I think we’re on different wavelengths.
He already responded, but you misunderstand him. He was responding to someone who asserted that an explicit constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate firearms as it chose would be a nullity.
When he demands your wallet, the robber expects you to reach inside your clothing for it. This isn’t like trying to snatch your Navy Colt cartridge conversion from the holster when Angel Eyes already has the drop on you. There are ways to stack the deck in your favor, too. For example, in the winter months I carry my. 38 in a coat pocket. If it is cold, my hands are in my coat pockets too. That revolver is easily fired without even removing it from the pocket. In the summer months, I carry a rather flat automatic in a hip pocket where one might be expected to reach for a wallet.
In such a confrontation, I might or might not prevail. I’d rather take my chances shooting than depend on the mercy of a criminal. YMMV, but the difference is that I don’t want to pass laws forcing anybody to do things my way.
No, even criminals are (usually) rational enough to do a simple cost/benefit analysis: trying to rob someone who is armed is a lot riskier than robbing someone who probably isn’t. Criminals are who motivated by straightforward gain target those they perceive as likely weaker- the elderly, the young, females, those who display fear.
You’re the one who postulated that muggers would become killers if that was the only way to rob people. See above. 25 to Life, Life without parole, or lethal injection is a hell of a bigger downside even to a career criminal than 10-20 years. And I am not “willing to kill as soon as someone threatens me and asks for my wallet”. I’m willing to put my gun in my hand at that point, and if they still think that assaulting me is a good idea, then I’m willing to use deadly force.
Who said mob justice? If your hordes of brigands were beseiging the public safety the laws would reflect whatever level of justice would be necessary to put an end to it. Do you honestly believe that nothing can deter robbery and assault, that it’s simply a bane of urban existence that we have to put up with?
They are; but then the USA has a far higher baseline rate of violent crime such as murder, rape and assault than other industrialized nations, irrespective of the presence or absence of guns. Or as a paper titled American Homicide Exceptionalism put it, the US has more non-gun homicides alone than all homicides in Europe and Japan combined. Within the US, legal gun ownership seems to corrolate with reduced violent crime, though I don’t have a breakdown by contributing factors.
Reading this thread has become extremely frustrating to me. It’s become an issue of pure semantics. The right to bear arms as a federal law. The right to bear arms as an amendment of the constitution. What difference does it make? An amendment can be repealed just as a law can. If people wanted it repealed, granted, it would be significantly more difficult, but it would be repealed. Just as it would as a law.
The government already holds the right to regulate, as it has several times. Making it a law rather than an amendment would change nothing, except make it easier to ban the right to bear arms. But if that would be the intention why make it a law in the first place?
I agree that there would be no sense in enshrining a federal “right” to bear arms as a law rather than as an actual Constitutional provision, which it now is. IMO it’s the whole concept of gun ownership as a “right” that’s obsolete, not gun ownership itself or legal regulation of guns.
Gun ownership should be like car ownership or ownership of any other potentially dangerous but useful and popular object: a matter of personal choice balanced with considerations of public safety. There is no intrinsic reason that I can see to preserve it as a fundamental right.
[QUOTE=Craz3d117]
The government already holds the right to regulate, as it has several times. Making it a law rather than an amendment would change nothing, except make it easier to ban the right to bear arms. But if that would be the intention why make it a law in the first place?
[/QUOTE]
Because that IS the intention. If the anti-gun movement could get the Amendment struck down then it would remove obstacles to (at first) spot out right bans (such as those in DC). Once a ban is in place, look how hard it is to overcome inertia and get those bans removed…I mean, hell, there are still places in the US that prohibit alcohol, and there is really nothing to stop another new wave of prohibition, if there were enough people in enough states to agitate for it. Alcohol isn’t protected under the Constitution or BOR after all, so it could be banned on a state or local level…or on a federal level, if there was sufficient support. And guns seem to be much more of a hot button issue for some people.
If the anti-gun folks can ever get Americans to believe that the 2nd is, indeed ‘an anachronism’ and should be struck down because of that ‘fact’, then it would be a huge victory for them. It would enable them to reverse recent trends and start the banning process…probably by the slippery slope method of banning handguns, say, or scary looking ‘assault rifles’ to begin with…or starting in places that are already favorable to a gun ban or already have bans in place. I think that, even then the anti-gun types would not find fertile ground in the current environment (which sort of cuts to the chase wrt them actually getting the 2nd repealed or modified to preclude the personal arms interpretation), but these are folks that seem very committed to the cause and willing to do baby steps.
Mind, I’m talking about the true faithful here…which I don’t think the OP is. I think he and probably most people in this thread taking the side that it’s ‘an anachronism’ really, truly think that it IS, and aren’t in this discussion from the perspective of ‘let’s ban em all and let the government sort em out’…but I do think that this is where this question stems from, ultimately. It’s all part of a larger game…though that might just be my paranoia talking.
It’s not “anti-gun” to think the 2nd amendment is an anachronism any more than it’s “anti-food” to think we don’t need to enshrine the right buy food in the constitution.
It’s not, John, and I didn’t say it was…in fact I acknowledged that you and others in this thread probably hold varying degrees of the banning urge…or none at all, and it’s merely an academic question to you and they. That said, I’m pretty much convinced that the general thrust of this IS coming from the anti-gun types, and that the purpose is (an attempt) to erode the 2nd Amendment.
See, you keep coming back to the same argument…that owning a gun is equivalent to buying food or some other commodity. It’s not the same because there is no large number of people agitating for the banning of food. Or computers. Or sofas.
Say, instead, that it’s like alcohol or tobacco…or, to me an even better example, nuclear power, since I see the anti-gun movement in approximately the same light as the anti-nuke movement, except that due to several factors the anti-nuke movement has been vastly more successful. Anything that is controversial and doesn’t have special protection from an out and out government ban is vulnerable…as the anti-gun folks know very well. If they could erode the 2nd to the point that it could be successfully abolished then it would open the door for out and out bans…which is where tobacco is eventually headed. That’s the goal of all this. And a key first step is to merely ‘prove’, in the court of public opinion, that the 2nd is ‘an anachronism’. Simple really…and elegant.
Put it this way. Let’s change the anachronistic 1st Amendment so that ‘porn’ is no longer considered protected under the 1st. What would happen? Well, some communities and possibly even states would move to either ban or vastly curtail it. There is a large anti-porn segment of the population. And, I mean, we don’t really ‘need’ ‘porn’, right? Why should it be enshrined by the Constitution?
I think it might be. I don’t think that people who are really fanatical about banning guns altogether would pretend to advocate for legal-but-not-Constitutionally-guaranteed gun ownership just in order to try to lull you into complacency about repealing the Second Amendment.
Speaking for myself, I really do think that gun ownership per se isn’t bad but the Second Amendment, nowadays, is. The Amendment was originally constructed to ensure provision for civil defense in a society that had an abiding horror of the notion of a state-maintained standing army. Well, we’ve slid all the way down that particular slippery slope now, and the practical reality is that we do have (and will have for the foreseeable future) a standing army that no non-governmental militia could realistically hope to oppose.
The civic function of private gun ownership thus has dwindled from national defense to personal choice and fulfillment, and while I think that’s a valid and important function, it is not adequate to entitle gun ownership to the status of a constitutional right.
Some interesting background on the history of the Second Amendment and of the NRA in this recent Jill Lepore article, which while a bit too tsk-tsky for my taste on the subject of gun violence does describe quite illuminatingly how American attitudes towards gun ownership have evolved over time.
