Boston Marathon attack

[Meadow337]

Here I think a usual criterion is "in fear of one's life" and I didn't realize you were shaving your scenario so closely. So what about "in fear of one's life?" Have to be actually shot at first?

Might go to mitigation but won't, in and of itself, get you off the hook.

http://www.roylaw.co.za/home/article/whencanyoushoottodefendyourself/pageid/your-rights

but basically:

While the law remains unclear, the constitutional right to life is likely to be given precedence over the right to protect property.

The criteria in your defense in a court case seems to be that the value of the property must not be trivial ie you can't shoot some one over your TV. And you have to prove that the level of violence used was necessary in order to thwart a direct attack in progress ie if the court decides that you could have avoided bloodshed by giving them your car, your wallet, etc you don't have much of a leg to stand on. But in general your property is not regarded as of equal value to another person's life. The only time you would get away with it scott free is if you could prove you shot in order to save your life, or another person's and even then you'd better have a good lawyer.

 

[Peder]

The only time you would get away with it scott free is if you could prove you shot in order to save your life (which is what I asked), or another person's.

So your law does permit shooting a person when in fear of your life (which is what I asked), subject of course to the court being convinced of your actual fear of your life.
It doesn't necessarily sound much different from here, no matter how you blur the issue with all sorts of other situations and try to make your situation sound better than ours.

 

[Meadow337]

So your law does permit shooting a person when in fear of your life (which is what I asked), subject of course to the court being convinced of your actual fear of your life.
It doesn't necessarily sound much different from here, no matter how you blur the issue with all sorts of other situations and try to make your situation sound better than ours.

I'm confused. I'm not trying to convince any one our situation is better. Our violent crime rate is insanely high. What I was saying is that we have learned some lessons in how to be safe without resorting to guns as a first line of defense because we can't. At least not without risking some serious fines/jail time/criminal record.

 

[Bluenote]

So despite your earlier assertion that 'every home should have one'

Prior to our proceeding any further. FIND and repost wherein I *EVER* made any such assertion. If you cannot do so then retract the above statement.

After that we can get to what Gandhi actually said as regards firearms , along with the rest of your points.

I like you Meadow , that said I ***will not*** tolerate the insertion of words into my mouth that I did not say , and nowhere will you find me making the statement above that you attribute to me.

Get your attributions in order.

 

[Meadow337]

Prior to our proceeding any further. FIND and repost wherein I *EVER* made any such assertion. If you cannot do so then retract the above statement.

After that we can get to what Gandhi actually said as regards firearms , along with the rest of your points.

I like you Meadow , that said I ***will not*** tolerate the insertion of words into my mouth that I did not say , and nowhere will you find me making the statement above that you attribute to me.

Get your attributions in order.

I apologise ... I did think it was you that said it, but I didn't go back through the posts and make sure. So I'm sorry, but all the same it isn't that huge an error

 

[Bluenote]

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”

From a 1918 recruitment pamphlet in which Gandhi urged Indians to fight alongside their British oppressors in WW1.....


Gandhi was a lifelong pacifist , that said he also understood the measures a society might have to resort to in order to combat oppression , he was *against* the Indian Arms Act (1878) which attempted to disarm the populace to protect British Rule for insurgency and insurrection.

I can go further if you wish me to do so on that specific subject.

On to other facts , one of the first things Hitler did when he gained control was to disarm the populace at large.

Pol Pot disarmed the populace at large.

Stalin did so......

Mao Tse-Tung did so

And we can discuss Mexico , Guatemala , Uganda and other locales.

Pertinent quotes from American politicos and lobbyists attempting to advance creeping socialism

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc. "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58] (Note: Pete Shields was the founder of HCI and its first Chairman.)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 1993, pg. 2a

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Attorney General Janet Reno

"What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned." Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH)

Now contrast the above with the following............

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

 

[Meadow337]

my first reaction is so what? Just because a few fascist states controlled guns does not prove a direct or causal link between that and gun control. The gun control came after they were voted into power so I fail to see how their efforts at gun control had anything to do with seizing power as you seem to be implying.

May I recommend a very delightful little book that is both fun to read as well as educational - its called The Butter Battle Book" by Dr Seuss and although it primarily highlights the inanity of the arms race during the cold war the ending is also salutary on the issue of weapons vs peace

 

[Bluenote]

my first reaction is so what? Just because a few fascist states controlled guns does not prove a direct or causal link between that and gun control. The gun control came after they were voted into power so I fail to see how their efforts at gun control had anything to do with seizing power as you seem to be implying.

May I recommend a very delightful little book that is both fun to read as well as educational - its called The Butter Battle Book" by Dr Seuss and although it primarily highlights the inanity of the arms race during the cold war the ending is also salutary on the issue of weapons vs peace

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse Meadow , gun control was part and parcel of what brought those states and individuals into power and helped them to maintain their power and abuse their people. The control of the populace in *every* case I cited was exacerbated and accomplished via removing the populations recourse to defense , it is what allowed despots to kill tens of millions in some of the cases I cited.

Don't even go there with me as regards Central and South America , I operated there keep that in mind , I have *seen* what happens to a populace caught between an abusive regime and the Marxist/Socialist Guerillas or criminal cartels , which are of course at times one and the same.

I also operated in Cambodia and Laos , I have *seen* the piles of bleached skulls the size of a bloody house , do you think Pol Pot would have accomplished that had the population had recourse to self defense? You're an intellectual , are you aware of what would have happened to *you* under the regime of Pol Pot?

And *you* brought the strawman of Afghanistan into this , a country which *NO* invader has been able to control for four thousand years , not even Alexander The Great. And yet you'll turn around and blow off the examples I have cited in a brusque manner?

Furthermore , you might wish to research exactly what Theodore Geisel did during WW2 prior to utilisng the much overused , tired and rather tedious Liberal Left tactic of telling folks to read " The Butter Battle Book".

As regards *your* part of the world , had UNITA just laid down it arms during the Angolan Bush Conflict as you would have all do in your idealism , do you really think SWAPO , the FNLA , the MPLA etc would have done the same?

 

[Peder]

I'm confused. I'm not trying to convince any one our situation is better. Our violent crime rate is insanely high. What I was saying is that we have learned some lessons in how to be safe without resorting to guns as a first line of defense because we can't. At least not without risking some serious fines/jail time/criminal record.

Well then I misunderstood. I thought you were sharing your supposedly superior knowledge, based on your experience in a high-violent-crime area, with us benighted individuals in a less violent crime area because you thought we were on a wrong road to where you are currently. And I don't think anyone suggested guns as a first line of defense here. By the time an intruder is in one's bedroom with a weapon, that sounds like last line of defense to me. And if he has the drop on me, as we say here, then I think he deserves shooting no matter what his purpose may be. But I'm glad you at least have a law that recognizes use of deadly force in such situations. I hope your judges are using it.

 

[SFG75]

guns don't help because a. violence creates more violence

The predictor of violence is intent. Whether it's a gun or a knife is irrelevant.

b. most law abiding citizens regardless of gun training have not had their inhibitions against killing another human being systematically removed through psychological conditioning

Most people who have gone through training understand the rules and ramifications of having a fire arm. Most of them know that if someone is in your house, you are more justified, than say, shooting someone in the back after they see you and start to run away.

c. most timrs guns are taken from their owner and used against them and/or in another crime

And the statistics you have to back that up are?????

d. most times crime occurs in such a way that even with a gun on your person it is no help because reaching for it would put you at greater risk.

Ahh, but felons would agree that robbing the home of a gun owner puts them at grave risk.

It is better to mindful of your environment, to proactively cautious about where you are,to whom you open your door, not stopping in high risk areas etc

I would agree about this whether you are armed or not. I doubt most people go looking for trouble though.

 

[Bluenote]

my first reaction is so what? Just because a few fascist states controlled guns does not prove a direct or causal link between that and gun control. The gun control came after they were voted into power so I fail to see how their efforts at gun control had anything to do with seizing power as you seem to be implying.

Wow , when I reread the above I'm amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance exhibited by an intelligent individual.

A "few fascist states", perhaps the most abusive regimes the world has every seen are now merely a " few fascist states"?

Name a fascist state that *hasn't* disarmed it's populace.

And then to attempt to connect Geisels stance against the ***arms race*** with the individual ownership of firearms in a disingenuous manner?

Pertinent reading material , John Lott , Stephen Halbrook ,Bernard Harcourt ,the National Research Council Report ,Martin Killias, Don Kates , Gary Mauser , David Mustard , Gary Kleck , Steven Levitt , Duncan Chapell, and I've many , many more.

Note that not all of the above are " pro gun".

Debate of this issue from a standpoint based upon idealism , hyperbole and sensationalist rhetoric is inherently self-defeating.

 

[Bluenote]

The second amendment is the source of your problems if your shooting statistics are anything to go by. Last year in the UK we had just over five hundred and the US had just over eight and a half thousand.

And the difference in population size is? Care to discuss the rise in violent crimes that don't utilise a firearm in the U.K.?

 

[Bluenote]

Aah the 'home as armed camp' scenario. If you choose to live behind your high fence (remind you of jail by any chance?) and dogs peering fearfully from your barred windows, gun in hand at the slightest noise outside, while every one else roams around freely that is your choice.

You really don't know much about the U.S. do you , especially the Western U.S. , which of course leads you to post hyperbole such as the above.

Tell me Meadow , do I strike you as an individual who " peers fearfully from a window" , no bars here by the way.

By the way , here , well we dislike " nosy neighbors". And I can assure you that I "roam" where I please to roam quite freely.

Please dispense with the hyperbolic portrayals of others , it's quite beneath you.

Here's a bit of a clue , I don't live in an urban environment Meadow , not that I haven't in the past , it's 30 plus miles into town and I can walk out my backdoor with a pack and a sidearm into hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness and mountains and not see another human for days , plenty of Bear , Deer ,Elk , Antelope and other wildlife but no people.

Thanks for the moment of mirth though " huddle behind the bars fearfully" indeed I think I may have cracked a rib laughing at that one. You have some rather strange ideas as regards this country. 3500 miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific , keep that in mind , a wide variation from Acadiana to the plains , to a wide variety of mountains , to the high desert , the Sonoran desert , the Gulf Coast etc.etc.

The S.E. Texas and southern Louisiana of my birth and raising isn't like the Rockies or the Sierras , they aren't like the Mojave which isn't like New England.......and so on.

Come see for yourself sometime , I'll meet y'all in Baton Rouge and show you what Zydeco really is and what a real crawfish boil is about.

 

[Meadow337]

Well then I misunderstood. I thought you were sharing your supposedly superior knowledge, based on your experience in a high-violent-crime area, with us benighted individuals in a less violent crime area because you thought we were on a wrong road to where you are currently. And I don't think anyone suggested guns as a first line of defense here. By the time an intruder is in one's bedroom with a weapon, that sounds like last line of defense to me. And if he has the drop on me, as we say here, then I think he deserves shooting no matter what his purpose may be. But I'm glad you at least have a law that recognizes use of deadly force in such situations. I hope your judges are using it.

Well excuse me for breathing! And no our law DOES NOT recognise use of deadly force, which is my point entirely. We can't mow down intruders with impunity with our assault rifles which means we have had learn to defend ourselves from crime in other non-violent ways. And while our policing is in the toilet, and our economy as well, crime isn't going away here in any kind of a hurry.

And yes I do think that as a woman living with my daughter on our own, we do have something relevant to say about how to stay safe without bars, without fences, and without guns. I REFUSE to live in fear!

That is the first lesson - STOP being fearful. The moment you give in to fear the 'enemy' has won, and you have lost your freedom.

Second lesson, without being paranoid or fearful, be vigilant and listen to your instincts. Something feels wrong - change direction, go another way, don't stop, don't go down that road etc.

End of Lesson.

 

[Meadow337]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse Meadow , gun control was part and parcel of what brought those states and individuals into power and helped them to maintain their power and abuse their people. The control of the populace in *every* case I cited was exacerbated and accomplished via removing the populations recourse to defense , it is what allowed despots to kill tens of millions in some of the cases I cited.

Don't even go there with me as regards Central and South America , I operated there keep that in mind , I have *seen* what happens to a populace caught between an abusive regime and the Marxist/Socialist Guerillas or criminal cartels , which are of course at times one and the same.

I also operated in Cambodia and Laos , I have *seen* the piles of bleached skulls the size of a bloody house , do you think Pol Pot would have accomplished that had the population had recourse to self defense? You're an intellectual , are you aware of what would have happened to *you* under the regime of Pol Pot?

And *you* brought the strawman of Afghanistan into this , a country which *NO* invader has been able to control for four thousand years , not even Alexander The Great. And yet you'll turn around and blow off the examples I have cited in a brusque manner?

Furthermore , you might wish to research exactly what Theodore Geisel did during WW2 prior to utilisng the much overused , tired and rather tedious Liberal Left tactic of telling folks to read " The Butter Battle Book".

As regards *your* part of the world , had UNITA just laid down it arms during the Angolan Bush Conflict as you would have all do in your idealism , do you really think SWAPO , the FNLA , the MPLA etc would have done the same?

Hmm should I quote what happened in Timor-Leste when José Ramos-Horta decided to get all the very violent opposing parties to come to the table and discuss things? It isn't just an idealistic philosophy - there are situations where the concept of laying down weapons ON BOTH SIDES has happened and peace has resulted. Admittedly it does require a willingness on both sides to sit down and actually make concessions and work it out. But where there is a will there is a way as Ramos-Horta proved.

And yes I think that the 'war' against apartheid was lost when they decided to stop following a policy of non-violence and take up weapons. Its left a legacy of violence we still struggle with. (Marikana shootings as a case in point).

Um I think you missed my point about the Butter Battle Book, if you recall at the very end, two are left standing in a mexican stand-off and every one else down a hole - a. similar to making your home an armed camp and b. ultimately weapons aren't the answer, now are they?

And lastly if you think that I can't see you are just discussing the second amendment by example rather than by actually mentioning it you are sorely mistaken.

May I point out that the second amendment was written at a time when the US of A consisted of a largely rural population, with no army, no policing, no State controlled military of any kind, thus it was logical AT THE TIME to say that it was necessary for the defense of the nation for its citizens to be armed. If today you say that case is still true, all you are doing is a form of treason, is it not? When you claim no faith in your government and its ability to protect you with its military and insist that your only protection is to be armed yourself? As well just a touch paranoid - against which enemy are you arming yourself may I ask? Wait wait you already said - the 'communists/fascists/socialists'. Well may I suggest that those aforementioned enemies are better fought in the political arena. Don't vote them into power!

 

[Meadow337]

Wow , when I reread the above I'm amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance exhibited by an intelligent individual.

A "few fascist states", perhaps the most abusive regimes the world has every seen are now merely a " few fascist states"?

Name a fascist state that *hasn't* disarmed it's populace.

And then to attempt to connect Geisels stance against the ***arms race*** with the individual ownership of firearms in a disingenuous manner?

Pertinent reading material , John Lott , Stephen Halbrook ,Bernard Harcourt ,the National Research Council Report ,Martin Killias, Don Kates , Gary Mauser , David Mustard , Gary Kleck , Steven Levitt , Duncan Chapell, and I've many , many more.

Note that not all of the above are " pro gun".

Debate of this issue from a standpoint based upon idealism , hyperbole and sensationalist rhetoric is inherently self-defeating.

Sweetpea, if you want to discuss something, don't just quote a few random disconnected things and expect an intelligent response from me If there is a connection between oppressive regimes and disarming the populace PRIOR to them being in power, as a means of gaining control, rather than as a means of maintaining control AFTER they have gained power then prove it.

And just because some bad guys used gun control in a negative way does not ipso facto mean that it is a bad idea. They also used the media, and presumably toilet paper when they pooped - are those things also a bad idea just because some nut misused them?

And if I was you I would be far more worried about the other moves on your freedom that are happening right under your noses. Read what the far right nuts had to say way back when on the matter of eugenics and the subsequent population control through abortion ..... just as an example ....

 

[Conscious Bob]

And the difference in population size is? Care to discuss the rise in violent crimes that don't utilise a firearm in the U.K.?

Well as there are roughly 5 US citizens for every 1 UK resident multiply 500 by 5 and you'll get 2500. Find another 6000 and you've got an argument. If you want to discuss crimes without firearms be my guest but that raises the statistics for both our countries.

 

[sparkchaser]

Hitler did NOT disarm the populace. If anything, he laxed the existing gun laws that were in place that would have prevented the arming of the NSDAP .

The "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" quote is fake.fake fake fake fake and people need to stop using it unless they want to lose credibility.

 

[Bluenote]

Sweetpea, if you want to discuss something, don't just quote a few random disconnected things and expect an intelligent response from me If there is a connection between oppressive regimes and disarming the populace PRIOR to them being in power, as a means of gaining control, rather than as a means of maintaining control AFTER they have gained power then prove it.

And just because some bad guys used gun control in a negative way does not ipso facto mean that it is a bad idea. They also used the media, and presumably toilet paper when they pooped - are those things also a bad idea just because some nut misused them?

And if I was you I would be far more worried about the other moves on your freedom that are happening right under your noses. Read what the far right nuts had to say way back when on the matter of eugenics and the subsequent population control through abortion ..... just as an example ....

Ya know something there CHILD , acting petulant and constantly indulging yourself with what is essentially borderline ad hominem really t'ain't a gonna get ya very far.

And neither is your undercurrent of assumption that all Americans are basically stupid and lack knowledge of their own country , it's history , it's political processes and assorted other items.

So ya want to setup yet another strawman do ya , exactly what does eugenics have to do with the subject at hand? And quite frankly ya might want to be REAL careful going down that road with me as you'll find yourself in a bit deeper water than you seem to assume.

It rather seems that you're getting increasingly desperate here and resorting to the usual tactic of " your nation is crap" and not much else , note that not a single person here has done that in response to YOU.

Keep going with that tone and I'll just point out the sheer hypocrisy of your stance in light of the human rights abuses common to the history of South Africa.

 

[sparkchaser]

Settle down, Francis. And everyone else, too.