Criminal Rights

[Peregrine]

Actually, I pretty much agree with your points. But I think you might be misunderstanding my view here. It is not justified to shoot someone who isn't a serious and immediate threat to your safety. As you say, that's "taking the law into your own hands", and simple murder. If you kill someone like that you're just as bad as any other murderer.

The only time it is justified is when that threat does exist. Example, someone in your house carrying a gun, and potentially able to shoot you if you don't act first, or someone charging you with a knife. That's clear danger, and the attacker forfiets their rights to life and safety as soon as they try to deny those rights to an innocent victim.

 

several states the death penalty is still allowed whereas there are very few European nations where that is the case (IIRC none of the western ones).

 

I actually disagree with the death penalty as it exists in this country. As I said in an earlier post, it is far too flawed to be justice. I believe it offers little, if any, benefit, and has a price far too high for what it does.

 

Using 'reasonable levels' of self defence is permitted (and reasonable is very difficult to define) but with the relative paucity of guns amongst the average Europeans it is unlikely include shooting. Therefore I doubt if there is a consensus view possible on this issue between Europe and the US.

 

That might be true there. And perhaps if criminals killing people with guns was a rare event, instead of an everyday event, I might agree. But until that threat is removed, I believe acting to defend against it is entirely justified.

 

And I kind of disagree with that definition of "reasonable levels". In my opinion, what decides the level is not the weapon, but the potential damage of it. Obviously, shooting someone who slaps you and walks off is unjustified, but what about a knife? Its supposedly a less dangerous threat, but still very capable of causing serious injury or death. And as I said earlier... knife vs. knife I have no reasonable chance of survival. So if I were to try to use the same level of force, I'd end up dead. But lets say I grab my AK-47 and shoot the knife attacker. Now we've got a living victim, and a dead criminal. Is this a better situation than a living criminal and a dead victim, and a bit of moral satisfaction at making it an equal fight? I don't think so.

 

So in summary... once someone decides to ignore the laws of society and your rights to life/safety, a "reasonable level" of force is whatever is needed to stop the attacker and prevent harm to the victim. If their method of defense happens to do less damage to the attacker, that's just a minor bonus.

 

I loathe firearms of all kinds and believe they should be banned by all intelligent societies.

 

I agree with the basic idea of that. But more practical concerns have to overrule it. Firearms are necessary both for individual and national defense, as long as the potential attacker has them. The only way this idea will ever be a reasonable one is if someone invents a magic button to instantly erase them all from existence and memory.

 

I hold by the view that if it is illegal for the state to execute individuals, it is illegal for individuals to do it. It can't even be described as 'taking the law into your own hands' as it is not the law.

 

But killing in self defense is not that. Taking the law into your own hands and executing individuals would be shooting a thief who had surrendered and was no threat. But shooting that same thief as he tries to kill you is self defense. There's a huge difference between the two.

[Malchik]

We seem to manage without guns in Europe by and large.

 

The difficulty in defining 'reasonable' is because a moment when you believe yourself to be under threat you lose much of the reasoning process from your brain. (it's the way we're made, fight or flight).

 

In consequence a gun can be used before there is any evidence that there was a serious threat. I fully take your point about knives but it is seldom that thieves use knives (muggers do but it is very unlikely you'll get a chance to shoot them). Also thieves are after your belongings not generally out to hurt you.

 

If someone is coming after you with the intention of killing or hurting you as an individual, or someone who is incapable of defending themselves, then if you kill them I wouldn't shed any tears over it. But killing thieves because they might be in a position to hurt you, and without evidence, is worse than cutting their hand off and you weren't in favour of that as I recall. (BTW it's pretty much what happened in Iraq IMO).

 

I don't believe it requires magic to reduce the level of gun crime in any society. It requires the will of that society. When they really want it, it will happen.

 

And this is not saying there is no place for guns in an organised national defence. I am talking about guns being freely available to the general public.

[Peregrine]

In consequence a gun can be used before there is any evidence that there was a serious threat. I fully take your point about knives but it is seldom that thieves use knives (muggers do but it is very unlikely you'll get a chance to shoot them). Also thieves are after your belongings not generally out to hurt you.

 

Again, notice the key point of immediate threat. As in gun out and ready to use, knife stabbing at you, etc. Simply being present is not that threat. If I were in that situation, where the criminal has no immediate ability to harm me, I would definitely give them the chance to surrender peacefully. And look at it from their point of view, if you're just after my tv, are you going to resist when you find yourself staring down an AK-47?

 

If someone is coming after you with the intention of killing or hurting you as an individual, or someone who is incapable of defending themselves, then if you kill them I wouldn't shed any tears over it. But killing thieves because they might be in a position to hurt you, and without evidence, is worse than cutting their hand off and you weren't in favour of that as I recall. (BTW it's pretty much what happened in Iraq IMO).

 

Well then I guess we agree. I don't believe that killing a thief because they might have a weapon is justified. And as I said, its probably unecessary anyway. Unarmed (or at least with their weapon not ready) and facing an armed victim, any sane thief is going to either surrender or run. But as soon as they show that weapon and try to put themselves in a position to use it, their right to life ends.

 

I don't believe it requires magic to reduce the level of gun crime in any society. It requires the will of that society. When they really want it, it will happen.

 

Ok, so it just requires a different type of magic. The people that are the strongest argument for individual citizens owning guns are the people who wouldn't cooperate with society's will. So until someone finds a way to change the minds of criminals, change like that isn't going to happen.

[Malchik]

Ok, so it just requires a different type of magic. The people that are the strongest argument for individual citizens owning guns are the people who wouldn't cooperate with society's will. So until someone finds a way to change the minds of criminals, change like that isn't going to happen.

By the look of your sig, you are one of those who believes it is right for private citizens to carry arms. In consequence you can only speak for one side of the debate. There are many in the US who feel very strongly that gun ownership needs to be curbed. Whether or not they are in the majority I have no idea but the US will find it far easier to prosecute criminals for having guns when ownership becomes illegal.

 

BTW it saddens me to hear you describing the reduction of the US gun culture as a kind of 'magic'. You are young. What hope is there for any country when even the young people have become so narrow minded?

 

Yours is the generation that can bring change and improvements. Accepting the status quo is for the old* and the apathetic and from other posts of yours I have read I don't believe you are either!

 

*old 'mentally' not in terms of your age.

 

Youth has always been revolting, long may it continue!

[Peregrine]

By the look of your sig, you are one of those who believes it is right for private citizens to carry arms.

 

Yes I do. That's simple fact, the US Constitution gives us that right.

 

But my sig isn't quite the best reason to believe that... it's based on my gaming self (I usually play as a sniper, with that weapon), which I hope I keep separate from reality! Well, at least until the trolls on this forum start randomly losing their heads....

 

There are many in the US who feel very strongly that gun ownership needs to be curbed. Whether or not they are in the majority I have no idea but the US will find it far easier to prosecute criminals for having guns when ownership becomes illegal.

 

Yes, to prosecute... but not to prevent the harm. Yes, you can send someone to jail for having an illegal gun, but how are you going to catch them? As proven by the drug problem in the US, illegal items are not very difficult to get. And assuming a person has at least some basic intelligence and keeps their illegal gun hidden, the only way they are going to get caught is when someone ends up dead because of it. Except now the only dead people are going to be the victims.

 

BTW it saddens me to hear you describing the reduction of the US gun culture as a kind of 'magic'. You are young. What hope is there for any country when even the young people have become so narrow minded?

 

Well, magic is exactly what would be required. Sure, the government could pass a new ammendment taking away the right to own guns. Probably the majority of people who actually care about laws would give them up without much trouble. But the problem is, those people are the cause of a minority of the crimes. Most of the (non-self defense related) deaths are caused by the people who don't care what the law or society say. Compared to that lack of concern, keeping an illegal weapon wouldn't bother them at all.

[Malchik]

It would be interesting to have a few facts. Neither of us is doing more than put our gut positions into the debate. As a European without the US gun laws I believe we have far less shooting related crime and far fewer deaths per capita. And I feel safer knowing that a row with my neighbour is not going to result in him losing his rag and shooting me on the spot; or my baby nephew might accidentally whack me after getting hold of his father's gun, or that a fellow pupil/employee disgruntled with the system might blast away at random killing me among others because his head is screwed.

 

However I am not sure how much I can trust such comparative figures I have seen and maybe I am being naive. No doubt some of what the Europeans hear of gun culture in America is exaggerated and there is gun crime here. By the film ???Searching for Columbine (sorry I've temporarily forgotten the name) was a real eye opener.

 

What I find hard to accept is that the logical conclusion to your view. You imply that because burglars know they are likely to come face to face with an armed householder it keeps down the crime levels. In consequence the removal of the right to own a fire arm will result in increased crime.

 

Yet without the right to own guns our per capita crime rates are already lower than yours. There's a credibility gap here I cannot get my head around.

[Nailo]

I have to aggree with Peregrine. I think it is alright to shoot and/or kill someone who poses an immediate threat to you. It doesn't matter if their a thief, murderer, or the mailman. If someone pulls out a 44. mag. and points at me, I will do all in my power to escape with my life, whether that be my assailant dead or alive.

 

I also oppose the Banning of Firearms. I live in the Southeastern US and I fire some sort of gun at least once or twice everyday. So firearms are a part of life with me. I hunt, shoot target competitions, and shoot just for enjoyment (not to say I am a psycho or anything). My entire family and friends do the same thing. And I believe that if guns are banned than (this has already been said) crime rate won't decrease but increase. If you ban guns, then you'll have to pretty much ban hunting and I know some people that couldn't live a day without doing a little hunting. So they'll buy illegal weapons to hunt. Then you also have the people that already breaks the law (theives, murderers, etc.) so what going to prevent them from just breaking another law to get their hands on a gun. Banning weapons would have to be the worst thing you could do in an attempt to lower the crime rate.

 

I think that if you want to lower the crime rate (and this is a very radical idea) then you should be harsher with the punishment. I mean just get rid of all prisons. If you commit a crime and deserve a sentence larger than 5 years than you should get the death penalty. And I don't mean get and go stay on death row a few years. I mean get the death penalty and that night you're hung, shot, gased, stuck, or fried. :rip: Then this will set an example of what to come for future criminals. Then if you aren't maintaing the prisons and the prison's occupants, you can use all that extra money for education or you could put into the local P.D.s and they could use it to better themselves at capturing criminals. Then again the criminals will see that if they commit a bad crime and have almost no chance of escape with death to come . . . more than likely they won't do it. And for the lesser offenders, hard labor or large fines should suffice. :mellow:

[Shakkara]

Punishment does not work. Over here the maximum sentance you can get is 15 years in jail (unless suffering from a mental disorder, in which case they get treatment first or locked up in an institution). It doesn't matter if they are serial killers or rapists, 15 year is maximum and usually they don't even get that. And I think 15 years is very very harsh, you basically take a large part of someone's life away, just think of it, a lot of you are under 20, imagine that you have spent all the time you have lived until now in jail. Also the US is one of the last countries in the world to execute juviniles and mentally ill people, which is completely barbaric and shows that they only seem to care about revenge rather than improving their society, if you can call it a society that is. As for the belief that you need guns, that you want them to hunt, that I can understand. That they keep you safe is just some borderline paranoid point of view IMO.

 

And I want to say once more: Society is RESPONSIBLE for crime, and THEY have to either prevent it by removing the causes for it such as poverty, oppression and stress, or help the people that strayed on the criminal path, not punish them.

[Zmid]

It would be interesting to have a few facts.  Neither of us is doing more than put our gut positions into the debate.  As a European without the US gun laws I believe we have far less shooting related crime and far fewer deaths per capita.

I would agree with that. Anyone fancy some research? :P

 

And I feel safer knowing that a row with my neighbour is not going to result in him losing his rag and shooting me on the spot; or my baby nephew might accidentally whack me after getting hold of his father's gun, or that a fellow pupil/employee disgruntled with the system might blast away at random killing me among others because his head is screwed.

 

Which is also exactly why I think a total ban on firearms can only be a good thing.

 

However I am not sure how much I can trust such comparative figures I have seen and maybe I am being naive. No doubt some of what the Europeans hear of gun culture in America is exaggerated and there is gun crime here. By the film ???Searching for Columbine (sorry I've temporarily forgotten the name) was a real eye opener.

 

I would say that US gun crime as portrayed in such things as Bowling for Columbine is exaggerated, but not by all that much. Speaking as a British citizen, in my country, when someone is shot, it practically makes national headline news because it's so rare. In America, it seems to happen very many times a day. Even taking into account the population difference between the UK and US, it seems clear gun crime is far more common and extreme in the US than the UK.

 

What I find hard to accept is that the logical conclusion to your view. You imply that because burglars know they are likely to come face to face with an armed householder it keeps down the crime levels. In consequence the removal of the right to own a fire arm will result in increased crime.

 

Personally, I would actually argue the opposite - if a burglar knows that the owner of the house he is breaking into may shoot him, he will probably go all out to eliminate this potential threat ASAP, so this would cause more murders as opposed to burglaries, so the severity of the crimes, if not the actual number, increases.

 

Yet without the right to own guns our per capita crime rates are already lower than yours. There's a credibility gap here I cannot get my head around.

 

Yep, that is exactly why I think the right to own guns just doesn't work as a criminal deterrent - in the US, you can own a gun, and that right is even enshrined in the country's Constitution, and gun crime is sky-high. In Britain, there is not a total ban, but just about, and gun crime is relatively rare.

 

By the look of your sig' date=' you are one of those who believes it is right for private citizens to carry arms. [/quote']

 

 

 

Yes I do. That's simple fact, the US Constitution gives us that right.

 

Yes, it is legally right (in America, at least), but I think Malchik was saying you also seem to believe it's morally right as well. I can't speak for Malchik, but, to me, it is a totally alien idea of it being morally right to own something that has one specific use - to kill someone.

 

There are many in the US who feel very strongly that gun ownership needs to be curbed. Whether or not they are in the majority I have no idea but the US will find it far easier to prosecute criminals for having guns when ownership becomes illegal.

 

Yes, to prosecute... but not to prevent the harm. Yes, you can send someone to jail for having an illegal gun, but how are you going to catch them? As proven by the drug problem in the US, illegal items are not very difficult to get. And assuming a person has at least some basic intelligence and keeps their illegal gun hidden, the only way they are going to get caught is when someone ends up dead because of it. Except now the only dead people are going to be the victims.

 

We do have a substantial drug problem in Britain as well. If I felt like it, and had the money, I could probably find someone willing to sell me drugs in about an hour, if that, and I live on the fringe of a middling size town away up in the north of Scotland. Yet, despite that being the case, gun crime is very rare.

 

How are you going to catch the people who keep their guns after it's made illegal? After this is introduced, you have a period where the police are empowered to carry out random searches of cars and people, and make it that whenever a car is pulled over for a traffic violation, or anyone is stopped in the street for any other similar minor infraction, they are searched, and if any guns are found, they are arrested and that gun is taken out of circulation. It may take a while, but eventually guns would become just as rare in the US as they already are in the UK.

 

BTW it saddens me to hear you describing the reduction of the US gun culture as a kind of 'magic'. You are young. What hope is there for any country when even the young people have become so narrow minded?

 

Well, magic is exactly what would be required. Sure, the government could pass a new ammendment taking away the right to own guns. Probably the majority of people who actually care about laws would give them up without much trouble. But the problem is, those people are the cause of a minority of the crimes. Most of the (non-self defense related) deaths are caused by the people who don't care what the law or society say. Compared to that lack of concern, keeping an illegal weapon wouldn't bother them at all.

 

Except of course, the number of guns in circulation would steadily decrease as people are arrested for simply possessing them and, as already happens, guns are taken out of circulation after being used in crimes. Keeping an illegal weapon would not bother criminals at all, but they would simply find it increasingly difficult to get one in the first place.

[ctogher]

If you commit a crime and deserve a sentence larger than 5 years than you should get the death penalty. And I don't mean get and go stay on death row a few years. I mean get the death penalty and that night you're hung, shot, gased, stuck, or fried.

Yes!

 

Think about it. The current legal systems available are under greater pressure to process larger numbers of repeat offenders, all because the systems are FLAWED.

 

The initial idea behind crime and punishment was the concept of deterrent, not process.

 

Regardless of how flawed the system is, the greater the deterrent, the less crime, the more accurate the system becomes as a result of the reduced work load...

 

Yes, innocent people have gone to the gallows. But not as a result of inherent inefficiency but because of simple volume. Those police officers are expected to handle anywhere up to 30 dockets at a time. Tell me in all honesty that they can be effectively investigated and I will probably have to retire...

 

So, the crims now see on national tv one of their ilk losing a body part or being exucuted, (humanely), and start to wonder if that tv or stereo is really worth it. As the crime rate drops, the work load for the police drops and suddenly they are more effective at what they do. This should translate into fewer innocent people falling prey to a flawed system..... The less crime there is, the fewer private gun owners there are.... the fewer accidental shootings.....

 

See! I can dream too......