Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
"Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed."
I agree with you, except the part noted above. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point? So how is a gu
So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.?
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People or animals. On the streets of most countries you do not find animals, at least not animals one would want to eat (the only valid reason to kill an animal imho). And almost certainly no animals that would want to eat you.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
And that is the difference between a gun and the other objects you mentioned: those objects do have a valid function in modern day life.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's right to self defence. I think it is a form of mental illness you're suffering.
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else. I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide. Even just across the border, in Shenzhen, which belongs to the world's most criminal cities, no-one carries a gun.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effecti
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
The USA has overall very relaxed gun laws (and "smuggling" from one state to another with stricter laws is trivial of course), and a very high number of gun deaths, murder, self-defence, accident, or otherwise.
Europe has overall very strict gun laws and much lower gun death rates.
Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government have stricter gun ownership laws, and lower gun related death rates than the USA.
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
"Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government"
Until you realize the impossibility and silliness of your comment, no intelligent conversation can be had.
Yes, the trend is that people kill by other means in those countries. What you're missing is that all crime is derived from societal forces, without regard to the tools available to the criminal.
Maybe in your snide haze, you missed the fact that those restrictive laws had virtually no effect on gun violence. Chicago's gun laws have been on the books since the early 80's and we just had one of the deadliest summers in a decade due to gun violence. Just like the War on Drugs, let's keep doing the same thing even though it's proven not to work. I agree with one of the other grandchildren posts in this thread: societal causes lead to violence, not guns. Given that over half of households in the cou
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Carrying a gun MAY help you against a sudden attack, but then if e.g. a robber is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, the last thing you should do is to start digging up your own gun. Provided you'd like to live to tell the tale.
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. Th
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
When I was in high school a friend of mine convinced me to join the wrestling team. I sucked pretty badly at it. I only had fighting with my siblings as experience where as my team mates had been doing it for four years or more. At my first tournament a friend of mine from another school's team wanted to informally wrestle with me to warm up and have some fun. He had been wrestling for years. He had won more than half of his last 40 matches by pin. I out weighed him by about 25 pounds.
You will note that itr ties with financial health, not gub ownership.
Also, Hong Kong is tine compared to the use. 426 sq mi and about 7 million people. I can find many similiar area and populations in sections of the US with a homocide rate far less then Hong Kongs.
Hong Kong expects a strong [police force and the polices ability to do whatever they want to make up for the lack of self defenc
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
You just don't get it though. It's not about weapons, it's about inequality. No amount of martial arts training is going to allow a crippled elderly individual to fight off a 20-year-old criminal bent on robbery and murder. Nor will the best martial arts fighter in the world stand a chance against a gang of half a dozen attackers.
Not everyone lives in Hong Kong or Shangri-La. The rest of us have to consider the very real fact that there are plenty of people out there who want to do others harm.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
I have no intention of hurting anyone, but I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh nearly 250 pounds so I could if I wanted to. I've fought and placed in martial arts tournaments. I'm not a world class fighter, but I can hold my own against most people. How is a 110 pound 5'2" woman supposed to defend herself from a man my size who decides
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who des
What's the difference between your wife using a taser or a hand gun to defend herself? Far as I can tell, both are defensive - one is merely less lethal than the other
When facing a single attacker, sure -- a taser makes a good deterrent. When Facing a group of attackers, "who wants to be the first to get tasered" is a much weaker deterrent than "who wants to be shot first?". One has a potential permanent result, and one does not.
You are the worst thing in the world. Fear begets fear. But why do i even bother, you're not reading this, already your mind is looking to see where you can attack my simple insult, perhaps with a firearm.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Flawed argument. Denying someone the right to carry a weapon is not denying them the right to self defense. She can carry a taser, learn martial arts to just name two ways.
Anyone can carry a taser and learn martial arts, that's all great. Now just imagine that you have a taser and know martial arts and 2 people attack you and they have guns. I think you'd die.
I was not going to jump into this, but for the love of God people, please learn something about the law. Self defense is NOT a "right," it is a privilege. A right is something the holder bears at all times, to which someone else owes a duty to recognize. A privilege, however, is only invoked if certain preconditions are met, such as the requirement that one must hold a driver's license to be able to use the public roads.
To be able to argue the affirmative defense of self defense, you must meet a certai
You have the right to self defence at all times. You are only in a position to defend yourself if you are being attacked but you don't lose the right. Just like free speech is a right, even though we sleep regularly and most of us don't talk in our sleep. Free speech doesn't become a privilege rather than a right because you sleep.
The need for self defence is (thankfully) quite rare. The right to self defence is constant.
For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misi
Nice try. The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house, not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing. Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege.
You do not understand the basic legal concept of a right versus a privilege. I suggest you start by reading up on Hohlfeldian correlatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld#Hohfeldian_analysis [wikipedia.org]
Good luck to you.
The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house
So you didn't even read the first sentence then. "A Castle Doctrine... is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)...
I repeat myself: For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misinformed.
not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing.
That might have been what you were talking about, I agreed to no such thing, nor did anyone propose that limitation on the discussion. I was
Can your wife defend herself with defensive arts like Karate, or with pepper spray or a taser?
Karate: No. She learns karate but realistically it will take years to become proficient. Also it doesn't address the size/strength imbalance. An attacker can also learn to fight and if he is larger and stronger will retain the same advantage. With guns there is equalisation.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Where do you live? If it really is that dangerous to be on the streets, don't you think it would be better to move somewhere safer? Even with a gun, her self-defence might fail, so moving would seem to ensure your wife's right to life in a better way.
I agree. Everyone should have multiple guns. We need to keep everyone in the USA safe! When finally everyone can kill anyone else as easily as changing a channel with a remote control, finally we will all be free.
My 2-year old child is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill him with his hands. To deny him the right to go armed is to deny him the right to self defence. To deny his right to self defence is in effect to deny his right to life. I assert my child's right to life,
If you don't see the difference between your 2 year old and my wife possessing firearms there is no hope of rational discourse with you. Nevertheless, my 2 year old has the right to self defence but not the capacity. That's why we care for her, including protecting her. She is at all times in the care of my wife, myself or another trusted individual. It remains my position that anyone protecting her ought to have the legal right to be capable of doing so and by that I mean the right to keep and bear arms.
I assume that one day when your wife gets spooked at night in an alley somewhere by some street-bad looking kid, pulls her gun and shoots him dead, only to find that he was trying to ask her directions to the closest 7-11, that you will happily surrender her to the justice system on a murder charge?
Or perhaps it is a mugger, and your wife shoots him dead (after all he pulled a gun..), then she turns around just as someone else walks in the the alley, they see her with a gun having just shot someone, turning towards them still holding her gun, so they grab theirs and open fire.. Will you uphold the third persons right to self defense?
"Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen.."
Really? Do they? When? How often? More often than an armed citizen successfully prevents a violent crime? (from 1 to 2 million times per year depending on how you count)
As it turns out, armed citizens shoot the right person more often than the police do and most of the time, they do not have to shoot at all (the mere presence or presentation of the gun deters a criminal). Since eliminating armed citizens would require increasing armed police to replace them, the rate of accidents will go up not down.
My son is 19 months old. Even your wife could kill him with her hands.
I see two logical conclusions to this: In a gun-free nation, your wife would have to be pretty good at a martial art in order to defend herself, or she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband. In the days before guns, that seems to have been the popular option.
In a gun-rich nation, by your argument, I should get my son a gun. You aren't going to deny my son's right to self-defence, are you?
Then you're either not trying or you need to brush up on your logic.
she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband.
As I said, I can't always be there. Try to bring up points I haven't answered in my post already. My wife has the right to self defence at all times, not just when I am present. Also, unfortunately, some women need to defend themselves from their husbands, have no husbands or have husbands that are physically incapacitated. Your proposed solution allows for the right to defence of their life only to married women who chose their husbands we
Or should one rather keep assault rifles in the home?
The US Constitution protects your right to bear arms, but state laws limit exactly what arms you are allowed to bear. Are those laws reasonable? If so, why do they differ? [wikipedia.org]
Let's imagine that you are only interested in defending yourself against an *average* attacker (burglar? car hijacker?) and not, say, a gang of heavily armed bank robbers, aeroplane hijackers, immigration control, or Marvin Heemeyer's bulldozer [liveleak.com].
Or should one rather keep assault rifles in the home?
1. Personally I prefer a shotgun for home defence.
2. "Assault rifle" is an ambiguous term generally used for propaganda purposes. It is impossible for me to know what you mean as I don't know how you are defining the term. It is my opinion that the ballistics of rifle fire make rifles generally unsuitable for home defence regardless of whether they are considered an assault rifle or not, possible exceptions being in rural areas. For the purpose of having a militia, which is a separate issue, I would favor
Thanks for your reply rohan972. "Shotgun" answers my question, and I imagine it is a popular option. I didn't realise "assault rifle" is a contentious term. A quick wiki [wikipedia.org] gave me this: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition." The legal term "assault weapon" is defined here [wikipedia.org].
Although that's not really my point. I was trying to determine where one
I didn't realise "assault rifle" is a contentious term. A quick wiki [wikipedia.org] gave me this:"An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition."
Yet the "assault weapons ban" dealt with an entirely different definition. If people would stick to one definition then ok, but to the media it sometimes seems that any semi auto version of a military rifle is an "assault weapon". When a flash suppressor and pistol grip define a rifle as an "assault weapon" then the term has ceased to be useful.
My biggest concern about protecting myself using a gun is that I'm probably not as good at using one as whoever has just entered my house, or is holding one to my head as I drive into my driveway.
Defensive firearm use usually happens at "across the room" distances or closer. The skill level required to hit your target is not difficult to attain. The key is si
Pohl's law:
Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
The second part is that
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed."
I agree with you, except the part noted above. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point? So how is a gu
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.?
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People or animals. On the streets of most countries you do not find animals, at least not animals one would want to eat (the only valid reason to kill an animal imho). And almost certainly no animals that would want to eat you.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
And that is the difference between a gun and the other objects you mentioned: those objects do have a valid function in modern day life.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's right to self defence. I think it is a form of mental illness you're suffering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else. I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide. Even just across the border, in Shenzhen, which belongs to the world's most criminal cities, no-one carries a gun.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effecti
Re: (Score:2)
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
An
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has overall very relaxed gun laws (and "smuggling" from one state to another with stricter laws is trivial of course), and a very high number of gun deaths, murder, self-defence, accident, or otherwise.
Europe has overall very strict gun laws and much lower gun death rates.
Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government have stricter gun ownership laws, and lower gun related death rates than the USA.
Seeing a trend here?
Re: (Score:2)
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
By you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you think a properly functioning government should disarm its citizens.
A collection of armed people are citizens. A disarmed populace are subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the trend is that people kill by other means in those countries. What you're missing is that all crime is derived from societal forces, without regard to the tools available to the criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in your snide haze, you missed the fact that those restrictive laws had virtually no effect on gun violence. Chicago's gun laws have been on the books since the early 80's and we just had one of the deadliest summers in a decade due to gun violence. Just like the War on Drugs, let's keep doing the same thing even though it's proven not to work. I agree with one of the other grandchildren posts in this thread: societal causes lead to violence, not guns. Given that over half of households in the cou
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else
You conveniently missed the part where he said the attacker didn't need a weapon. That's what "with his hands" means.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Carrying a gun MAY help you against a sudden attack, but then if e.g. a robber is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, the last thing you should do is to start digging up your own gun. Provided you'd like to live to tell the tale.
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
Mar
Re: (Score:1)
As anecdotal evidence.
When I was in high school a friend of mine convinced me to join the wrestling team. I sucked pretty badly at it. I only had fighting with my siblings as experience where as my team mates had been doing it for four years or more. At my first tournament a friend of mine from another school's team wanted to informally wrestle with me to warm up and have some fun. He had been wrestling for years. He had won more than half of his last 40 matches by pin. I out weighed him by about 25 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, you need to pay attention.
If you look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
You will note that itr ties with financial health, not gub ownership.
Also, Hong Kong is tine compared to the use.
426 sq mi and about 7 million people.
I can find many similiar area and populations in sections of the US with a homocide rate far less then Hong Kongs.
Hong Kong expects a strong [police force and the polices ability to do whatever they want to make up for the lack of self defenc
Re: (Score:1)
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives in Hong Kong or Shangri-La. The rest of us have to consider the very real fact that there are plenty of people out there who want to do others harm.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
I have no intention of hurting anyone, but I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh nearly 250 pounds so I could if I wanted to. I've fought and placed in martial arts tournaments. I'm not a world class fighter, but I can hold my own against most people. How is a 110 pound 5'2" woman supposed to defend herself from a man my size who decides
Re: (Score:1)
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who des
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a society where it is too dangerous for smaller weaker people to walk down the street, you need to emigrate.
Re: (Score:2)
When facing a single attacker, sure -- a taser makes a good deterrent. When Facing a group of attackers, "who wants to be the first to get tasered" is a much weaker deterrent than "who wants to be shot first?". One has a potential permanent result, and one does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Flawed argument. Denying someone the right to carry a weapon is not denying them the right to self defense. She can carry a taser, learn martial arts to just name two ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can carry a taser and learn martial arts, that's all great. Now just imagine that you have a taser and know martial arts and 2 people attack you and they have guns. I think you'd die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The need for self defence is (thankfully) quite rare. The right to self defence is constant.
For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house
So you didn't even read the first sentence then. "A Castle Doctrine ... is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)...
I repeat myself: For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misinformed.
not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing.
That might have been what you were talking about, I agreed to no such thing, nor did anyone propose that limitation on the discussion. I was
Re: (Score:2)
Can your wife defend herself with defensive arts like Karate, or with pepper spray or a taser?
Why must she protect herself with lethal means?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gun ownership per se, but your argument falls a little short.
Re: (Score:1)
Can your wife defend herself with defensive arts like Karate, or with pepper spray or a taser?
Karate: No. She learns karate but realistically it will take years to become proficient. Also it doesn't address the size/strength imbalance. An attacker can also learn to fight and if he is larger and stronger will retain the same advantage. With guns there is equalisation.
Pepper spray: Not legal for her to have it where we live. Also known to not always work http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-tell-of-nightmare-with-zombie/2008/10/08/1223145421609.html [smh.com.au]
Taser: Not legal for her to have it where
Re: (Score:1)
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
Where do you live? If it really is that dangerous to be on the streets, don't you think it would be better to move somewhere safer? Even with a gun, her self-defence might fail, so moving would seem to ensure your wife's right to life in a better way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Interesting)
I assume that one day when your wife gets spooked at night in an alley somewhere by some street-bad looking kid, pulls her gun and shoots him dead, only to find that he was trying to ask her directions to the closest 7-11, that you will happily surrender her to the justice system on a murder charge?
Or perhaps it is a mugger, and your wife shoots him dead (after all he pulled a gun..), then she turns around just as someone else walks in the the alley, they see her with a gun having just shot someone, turning towards them still holding her gun, so they grab theirs and open fire.. Will you uphold the third persons right to self defense?
Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen..
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen.."
Really? Do they? When? How often? More often than an armed citizen successfully prevents a violent crime? (from 1 to 2 million times per year depending on how you count)
As it turns out, armed citizens shoot the right person more often than the police do and most of the time, they do not have to shoot at all (the mere presence or presentation of the gun deters a criminal). Since eliminating armed citizens would require increasing armed police to replace them, the rate of accidents will go up not down.
As a gu
Re: (Score:1)
My son is 19 months old. Even your wife could kill him with her hands.
I see two logical conclusions to this: In a gun-free nation, your wife would have to be pretty good at a martial art in order to defend herself, or she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband. In the days before guns, that seems to have been the popular option.
In a gun-rich nation, by your argument, I should get my son a gun. You aren't going to deny my son's right to self-defence, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
I see two logical conclusions to this:
Then you're either not trying or you need to brush up on your logic.
she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband.
As I said, I can't always be there. Try to bring up points I haven't answered in my post already. My wife has the right to self defence at all times, not just when I am present. Also, unfortunately, some women need to defend themselves from their husbands, have no husbands or have husbands that are physically incapacitated. Your proposed solution allows for the right to defence of their life only to married women who chose their husbands we
Re: (Score:1)
Is it sufficient to have a handgun?
Or should one rather keep assault rifles in the home?
The US Constitution protects your right to bear arms, but state laws limit exactly what arms you are allowed to bear. Are those laws reasonable? If so, why do they differ? [wikipedia.org]
Let's imagine that you are only interested in defending yourself against an *average* attacker (burglar? car hijacker?) and not, say, a gang of heavily armed bank robbers, aeroplane hijackers, immigration control, or Marvin Heemeyer's bulldozer [liveleak.com].
In tha
Re: (Score:1)
Or should one rather keep assault rifles in the home?
1. Personally I prefer a shotgun for home defence.
2. "Assault rifle" is an ambiguous term generally used for propaganda purposes. It is impossible for me to know what you mean as I don't know how you are defining the term. It is my opinion that the ballistics of rifle fire make rifles generally unsuitable for home defence regardless of whether they are considered an assault rifle or not, possible exceptions being in rural areas. For the purpose of having a militia, which is a separate issue, I would favor
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for your reply rohan972. "Shotgun" answers my question, and I imagine it is a popular option. I didn't realise "assault rifle" is a contentious term. A quick wiki [wikipedia.org] gave me this: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition." The legal term "assault weapon" is defined here [wikipedia.org]. Although that's not really my point. I was trying to determine where one
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't realise "assault rifle" is a contentious term. A quick wiki [wikipedia.org] gave me this:"An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition."
Yet the "assault weapons ban" dealt with an entirely different definition. If people would stick to one definition then ok, but to the media it sometimes seems that any semi auto version of a military rifle is an "assault weapon". When a flash suppressor and pistol grip define a rifle as an "assault weapon" then the term has ceased to be useful.
My biggest concern about protecting myself using a gun is that I'm probably not as good at using one as whoever has just entered my house, or is holding one to my head as I drive into my driveway.
Defensive firearm use usually happens at "across the room" distances or closer. The skill level required to hit your target is not difficult to attain. The key is si