All reasonable points, thank you.
I don’t mean to move the goalposts but if you are as intelligent as you seem and have a gun, that’s probably okay. But if the whole populace is armed, including those people who are not intelligent, that’s when I get a wee bit whacky about the gun thing.
If everyone had a gun, that means that stupid people who store them improperly have guns. That means that people with anger management problems have guns.
To me, that’s a scary place.
The law in Nebraska is that I may use my gun on another human being in the following circumstances:
I have a reasonable fear that I am in immediate danger of losing my life.
I have a reasonable fear that I am in immediate danger of being severely injured. (Nebraska law defines that as permanently crippling injuries.)
I have a reasonable fear that I am about to be kidnapped. (This one might not make sense at first - until you realize that the main reason someone would want to kidnap you, unless you’re so famous and wealthy that ransoming you is a reasonable option, is that they want to do something Very Bad to you, but can’t get away with doing it to you right there. So they want to move you to a more isolated, remote place where they have more control of the situation and can harm you worth no fear of interruption.)
I have a reasonable fear that I am in immediate danger of being sexually assaulted. (The law doesn’t require me to give a would-be rapist the benefit of the doubt and assume that rape is ALL he has on his mind.)
In order for the fear to be reasonable, I must be able to show that the person I shot had the means, the ability, and the opportunity to harm me. Immediate means RIGHT NOW, not minutes/hours/days from now. If I can retreat without endangering myself, I am expected to take that option rather than use lethal force. I cannot shoot to protect property.
So if I see someone stealing my car, I can’t shoot him. If a guy across the street is yelling “I’m going to kill you, you bitch!” and I believe he means it, I can’t shoot him either unless he has a gun and is aiming it at me, or he has an edged weapon or club weapon and can get close enough to me to use it within 2-3 seconds (generally that means he’s closer than 21 feet from me). Absent either of those things he’s too far away to have the actual opportunity to hurt me, even if he wants to (plus, I can probably retreat in that situation).
Now let’s look at the situation where someone breaks into my house at night. Is it reasonable for me to assume this person might be a rapist or would-be killer, and not just a burglar? Yes - rapists certainly have been known to break into houses, and if the guy’s just a burglar, why is he breaking into the house during a time when it’s most likely to be occupied? Does he have the actual means, opportunity, and ability to harm me? Yes, especially if he’s bigger than me and/or has a weapon. Can I retreat? Not if I’m in my bedroom - the windows are second story, and there’s only one door (the one the intruder is trying to open).
So if he breaks down my bedroom door, I am justified in shooting him - unless he stops or runs away when he sees the gun in my hands. Then I am expected to hold my fire. I can’t execute him in cold blood, but I CAN legally shoot him to protect myself in that situation if he advances on me.
Okay… (deep breath) Setting aside all ideological points…
Lethal force is justified in any situation where a person is likely to suffer death or permanent injury at the hands of another. Normally this implies that someone is attempting to murder you with some sort of implement (it does not have to be a gun). Also, in the US lethal force can be used to prevent a rape. (Obviously “Any situation” excluding justified or state sanctioned violence)
If you can still reason it out, or flee, or resolve the problem without violence, you are morally (and often legally) required to do so. As mentioned above, it is illegal to even display a firearm if lethal force is not justified. And with very few exceptions, it is illegal to use a gun on someone committing a crime unless they are about to harm you (so you can’t scare off trespassers, etc).
So it always pulls my chain when people say things like, “Just call the police.” If you have time to call the police, it’s probably not truly a life-or-death situation. Same thing about fleeing… if you can flee, you are probably not justified in using lethal force. (Whether you are legally REQUIRED to flee varies by state)
The other thing that pulls my chain is the perception that people with guns actively walk around looking for fights, or are not taking other obvious measures to secure their person. Keeping yourself safe starts with avoiding trouble to begin with. People who don’t take pro-active security measures are stupid, and that’s how you end up with people like Martin Zimmerman… they run around with their guns like its a toy and think it’s the first resort when it should be the last.
And some of the stuff you’ve written flat out astonishes me. When you say being raped is a small price to pay for having no guns around… Wow… I’m sorry, but I cannot fathom what kind of worldview this must be.
When you describe being freaked out because the guards at a mall had guns… I just don’t understand that. I live in a part of the world where NOT owning a gun is abnormal, and a lack of proficiency in said gun borders on negligence. The idea that the mere presence of guns is frightening in and of itself is astonishing to me.
It’s a scary place to me as well, which is why I don’t object to laws which would require more rigorous background checks before purchasing firearms, training, and a range test that proves the person in question knows the basics of gun safety and can hit the broad side of a barn. ESPECIALLY if the person in question wants to carry a gun, not just keep one in his home. I’d personally have no objections to every handgun owner having to pass the requirements for a CCW permit, given the fact that handguns are the most widely misused weapons.
But one of the reasons getting such requirements passed into law here in the US is difficult is because too many people who are unfamiliar with violence and unfamiliar with firearms believe that no one other than the police (who seem to have some magical ability no one else possesses) can learn to safely and effectively use a firearm. There’s a history of such laws being selectively interpreted so the wealthy and connected can own a firearm but the average Joe or Jane cannot. Gun owners here fear such laws will eventually be used to strip us of some or all of our firearms 'because we don’t need them," whether that is true or not. Which is unfortunate, because I think reasonable compromise is possible. The laws could be modified in ways that would make it harder for criminals and people with temperament issues to misuse weapons, while still keeping them available for average people to use if they want them.
But when you look at who’s actually shooting who in the US, it really doesn’t look all that different from other first world countries. Despite the recent headline tragedies, most gun violence in the US almost entirely criminals shooting other criminals. If you aren’t into the criminal lifestyle and don’t buy or sell illegal drugs, you’re not likely to get shot. Our criminals just shoot each other at higher rates than they do elsewhere.
Here is your phrasing: first, you said that you wouldn’t shoot someone even if he was going to kill your kids. Then you claimed that in your opinion “If they [my kids] don’t believe that every other life on the planet is equal to theirs, that’s their prerogative. It will not change my belief that no life is worth more than any of ours.” Is this misrepresenting what you posted?
If not - the only conclusion that can be reached is that you think that your kids’ life is not worth more than the life of their about-to-be-killer. And that’s disgusting.
Thanks artemis and solosam. This was sort of what I was looking for. I still like living in my little corner of the world without guns but at least I understand now.
First of all, that is totally uncalled for.
But as to your question, we all live in a world where, on occasion, people need to die. As unfortunate and sad as it is, that is reality. It’s not a reality that the sensible mind revels in or celebrates, but it is reality, nonetheless. Sorry.
Speaking of questions, do you plan on answering those I and several posters asked of you upthread anytime soon?
I thought it was. solosam was calling me a worthless parent for not being willing to use a gun on another human being. I responded in kind.
As to the questions I may have missed, I would appreciate if you would point me towards them, I will be happy to answer when I get back. It was hard to see any questions between the vitriol that was occurring in the thread.
Perhaps you could quote me correctly. I never mentioned “the sticks”, and it would take a lot longer than 1/2 an hour if it were “the sticks”.
I can’t remember which mass killing it was ( might have been the junior school shooting ) but the reason some shootings go on so long is because of the time it takes for the police to respond, even in built up areas.
I guess I’m going to get my ass burned for this, but crap, here’s M(NS)HO about this and many other guns/self defense threads.
I really don’t know if I’m feeling pity or disgust. Pity for all those US citizens who apparently walk through life in continuous fear for their fellow humans. Or disgust for the stereotypical gun-totin’ mainiac 'murrican whose only solution to life’s problems is “Shoot them. Shoot them all”. Having actually lived in the US, I’ve been working on my European stereotypes of Americans, because I’ve been tinking that they’re unfair to the sensible part of the US population.
The thing about a lot of stereotypes is that they’ve got just enough substance to be strongly supported by confirmation bias, and I’ve been working with myself to avoid that confirmation bias and kill the stereotypes I grew up with. Problem is, I’m having a really hard time to do that now. This thread makes me more and more convinced that a significant part of USA is a society of fear. And because of fear, you believe you need guns to defend yourselves. In Euroland, I’m walking quite happily through life, confident that the amount of people who want to kill me is so small as to be completely, totally insignificant compared to life’s other dangers. I don’t feel the need for a loaded gun by my bedstand because OMG!!!11!! SOMEONE’S GONNA BREAK IN AND KILL ME AND RAPE MY WIFE AND KIDS!!!111!!! In fact, I feel much safer without a loaded gun by my bedstand, because being a hunter and a shooter I know that a loaded gun is inherently a dangerous object, able to cause bodily harm and/or death by virtue of just a very small error from someone. From that POV, I guess I’m mostly feeling pity. OTOH, the Martin/Zimmerman thing is, IMHO, an example of the other side of the coin. Would George Zimmerman have gone on his vigilante “public service” thing that ended up with a young man being shot if he weren’t armed? Myself, I think not. If someone, by virtue of not being armed, avoids trouble instead of confronting trouble “'cause, y’know, I can defend myself, y’know”, there would probably be less people maimed and killed in armed confrontations.
Oh, well. You “I-really-need-a-gun-for-self-defense” guys are really confirming my opinion that I did a smart thing moving my ass out of the US and back to Europe, where I don’t have to live in continuous fear for my life. Carry on as you are.
And yet only one country in Europe comes above US in the survey of perception of safety when walking on a dark street: Countries Compared by Crime > Perception of safety > Walking in dark. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
I am happy you left as well.
Choosing to prepare for the possibility of a rare event is not the same as living in continuous fear. Would you think I’m a pants-wetting coward if I told you I have a tornado shelter? Somehow I doubt it - but the underlying mentality is the same.
Having my house destroyed by a tornado is a rare but possible event with devastating consequences, so I prepare for it. Having an intruder force his way into my home to attack me is also a rare but devastating event for which I have chosen to prepare. It’s readiness, not fear.
What I don’t get is the fear so many anti-gun people have that if an otherwise peaceful law-abiding person chooses to carry a gun, then s/he must be delusional or a barely-repressed homicidal maniac. On multiple occasions I’ve read comments that supposedly the very act of picking up a gun instills a murderous mindset, like Terry Pratchett’s fictional “gonne”. People who actually own guns, and have family members, friends and colleagues who do also know this is preposterous. I’m astonished at the number of people who have a paranoid neurotic phobia about guns, and they seem to be projecting their hoplophobia onto gun owners.
It’s not like that at all and I think you know it. I fully expect I will never point a gun at another human being. I don’t live in constant fear at all, but bad things can happen and in that unlikely event I would rather be prepared than see myself or someone I love hurt. A gun is just a tool, it’s an inanimate object that won’t do a damn thing by itself. Driving a car is a dangerous and unpredictable activity, owning a gun most assuredly is not any more than owning a baseball bat or toaster. If you don’t want to be prepared and capable that’s fine, you will probably never have a problem. I probably won’t either but it is my right to be prepared if I so choose.
I’ve said endless mocking things about our board pacifists, and even I wouldn’t go that far.
I think pacifism is fundamentally wrongheaded and often selfish. But pacifists aren’t worthless; they’re just making an incorrect moral calculus, in my view. As long as they’re not trying to force their view on others (and it’s not like they’d win – they are, after all, unarmed) :D), I’m okay with it.
Again going too far. I think it does require some courage to be a pacifist, in that you are voluntarily and knowingly putting yourself in danger for reasons of morality. Just because their morality is in my opinion mistaken doesn’t mean their courage isn’t real. They’re overcoming their fear to do what they believe is right.
If you are going to use Zimmerman as an example, get your facts straight.
The reason he had a gun, was that there was a savage dog in the area, and the POLICE advised him to carry one. He also has a carry permit.
Had he not been armed, IMO he would have been killed or seriously injured himself.
BTW, I lived in Europe, and the place was full of thugs and low life’s of whom I was much in fear of my life. You need to be specific as to which European country was this utopian paradise of which you speak.
So there’s a dog in the neighborhood that’s so savage that residents are advised to carry a gun? Was it Cujo? Why wasn’t animal control out looking for this savage dog? What about the children in the neighborhood? Were they being mauled since they didn’t have a gun?
If Zimmerman wasn’t armed, would he have followed Martin in the first place? The gun likely gave him the confidence to wander dark alleys looking for Martin. If Zimmerman doesn’t have a gun, maybe he just stays on his car waiting for the police.
And there are times that fear is justified. You have no way of knowing when your number will come up in the lottery and you need to be prepared.
High school coach shoots two in attempted mugging.
Fat lot of good those did when the coach had only a few seconds to react. Why is the coach escorting students? Where’s the campus security?
Thank you for making my point.