StarGateWars Forums

Jack wrote:Criminals do not care if guns are illegal, they do not care about laws, that is why we call them criminals. Almost all gun crimes are committed with guns that were obtained illegally. So, that falls that argument falls hard in the face of fact.

You mean the situations where law abiding citizens successfully defend themselves and their property from criminals? What kind of **Filtered** up world do you live in where you want to make it easier on the thieves?

OK. Slightly flawed argument there. When a terrorist sets himself up in front of a hotel/police building/hospital/anywhere and blows himself up, he almost certainly has the advantage because he's unlikely to reveal what he's carrying around and his mere presence infront of any one of the said buildings isn't enough to carry suspicion. In other words, he can carry out the deed without so much as a hinting at his intentions.

The conclusion should not therefore be that all citizens (the people likely to be the victims) should have the right to search any vehicles at their pleasure to convince themselves that they are not in any danger. If we empower ourselves as much as terrorists/thieves/thugs/any other criminal lowlife, we are likely to do more harm than good. By that logic, any means of self defence at all should be available to us if we feel in any way endangered.

So life is easier for criminals by definition. Criminals are not required to obey laws. They are not limited by the rules - only by their money/morality (of which the latter is likely nonexistent). Of course they have it easier.

So you could argue that firearms even the playing field. Perhaps we should make our lives a little easier, but not go all the way, because of the inherent dangers (i.e. the dangers of harbouring a nuke in your backyard). Well, then the question becomes whether our lives are made substantially easier through firearms and whether the danger is low enough to not endanger our society.

Both of these are very subjective questions. Purely from a security point of view, it seems that the vast majority of people will not require a gun in their lives, and that in most cases where a felony is committed, there remains the option to escape/ring the police/anything other than shoot and kill. Not all cases of course. This is a purely probabilistic assessment.

Jack wrote:The Castle Doctrine was not created to allow you to defend yourself exclusively from people with guns, but from anyone committing a felony. That includes everything from arson to rape. Most rapists, or atleast the ones I've heard of, don't use guns, they use knives.

You're the only one that stated that. And it's extremely naive. Irrational people are just that, irrational. They do not have rational thoughts such as "no one is armed, so I don't need a gun." But even without a gun they are still deadly and I do not want to tango with someone like that.

But that is exactly what you will be doing, even if you have a gun. As soon as you start a fight, of any kind, you're putting yourself in danger.

Jack wrote:You're not listening to a damn thing I am saying. When someone breaks into your house and you are there, you're life is already placed in danger. Defending your home is protecting your life, you have no way of knowing what type of crook they are and again, as I've many times. If they are breaking into a house while someone is home, the odds are that they are much more likely there to kill or rape you than being the type of criminal that tries to avoid harming people.

The odds were linked to above. It's a very subjective argument to use for firearms. It is definitely not grounds alone to allow gun possession. I agree that earlier comments were naive, and that you have no way of knowing anything about the criminal (nor do you have the duty/responsibility to find out, of course), so erring on the side of caution is necessary.

But the death sentence is outlawed in most Western countries, and even in the US, requires rather more than simply breaking and entering. How is it that you should be given the right to carry it out yourself?

Additionally, the "defending your home is protecting your life" position is far from a given truth, particularly in light of the fact that the Castle Doctrine only exists in Israel, outside the US. I don't see how it can be justified absolutely without awareness of the specific circumstances under which self-defence was undertaken.

Jack wrote:Morality is BS and a flawed theory. It was morally acceptable for the Nazis to mass murder the Jews, it was morally acceptable throughout history for people to keep slaves. It was your moral obligation to kill anyone you perceived to be a witch. Was your moral obligation to stone children and their entire families for the most heinous crime of telling their parents no. It's the moral obligation of Islamic families to stone their daughters for their promiscuity.

I don't believe any of those things were morally acceptable and unless you believe in extreme moral relativism, neither should you.

Having said that, I agree that morality should not be the basis for the law. The purpose of criminal law is "to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests". One could argue that the Castle Doctrine falls outside this purview.

Jack wrote:So please, do not come to me with this BS idea that morals are similar, and religions are all similar because they are all cloning only a couple original religions. You say that it's immoral to kill someone over a piece of property, well I have a country full of people that'll tell you otherwise. Morality's sole purpose is to give you a false sense of superiority.

You don't, actually. And even if you did, on principle (which is what we're arguing) that argument holds no water. And morals are fairly similar across cultural and social boundaries. At least on big issues. Nobody is disputing that different cultures each have their own individualities and idiosyncracies.

And I don't see how morality should make one feel superior. Nor what relevance this has to the discussion.

Jack wrote:Wasn't a burglar, was a friend that went **Filtered** insane and tried to kill another friend. No he did not have a gun, he had a knife.

Ummm, you don't have to kill someone for a gun to be useful as a self defense tool, most times you don't even have to fire.

While I agree with you in principle, your argument is that killing is acceptable in such circumstances. And a gun is a killing machine, whichever way you put it. It's not a natural negotiator. A knife is a utility, not a weapon, though obviously it has its uses in violence. Not so with a gun.

And again, what circumstances justify deadly force, and why? Why is entering a home a threat to your life, and how can you prove it in specific circumstances? Why do some states have a retreat clause? It seems that there are significant ambiguities inherent in gun possession/the Castle Doctrine that favour the possessor in a quite unjustified way.

Jack wrote:But about your statement that I would have killed him. Let's see, jump a raving lunatic that has a knife, or shoot him? Not much of a choice there, partner.

Are those really all the choices? Always? Probabilistically?

Ridd1ck wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:which is what i've been saying all along

You have I will give you that. It's Rocky and Kit that have my dander up.....

I fail to see how as I have already stated that I am indeed pro sensible gun ownership.

If i wasnt you'd have seen Jack ripping into me already as I seem to be one of his favorite targets here

ROCKY wrote:

Jack wrote:Criminals do not care if guns are illegal, they do not care about laws, that is why we call them criminals. Almost all gun crimes are committed with guns that were obtained illegally. So, that falls that argument falls hard in the face of fact.

You mean the situations where law abiding citizens successfully defend themselves and their property from criminals? What kind of **Filtered** up world do you live in where you want to make it easier on the thieves?

OK. Slightly flawed argument there. When a terrorist sets himself up in front of a hotel/police building/hospital/anywhere and blows himself up, he almost certainly has the advantage because he's unlikely to reveal what he's carrying around and his mere presence infront of any one of the said buildings isn't enough to carry suspicion. In other words, he can carry out the deed without so much as a hinting at his intentions.

If I understood Jack's argument, your response makes no sense or is irrelevant.

My understanding of Jack's argument is the following. I'll break it down for you and if you still think it's flawed, point out the flaw instead of going on an irrelevant tangent.

1. Law abiding citizens can only have guns if it is legal to purchase guns.

2. Criminals can use illegal means to acquire guns.

3. Whether or not it is legal to own guns, criminals will have access to guns.

4. Law abiding citizens do not have access to guns if it is illegal to own guns.

5. In cases where it is illegal to own guns, criminals can be armed with firearms, but law abiding citizens cannot.

6. In cases where it is illegal to own guns, law abiding citizens are less capable of using force than criminals are.

7. Criminals are ready to use force aggressively.

8. Law abiding citizens can be ready to use force, but defensively.

9. In cases where it is illegal to own guns and citizens are less capable of using force than criminals are, we have a system where the aggressive force is likely to be stronger than the defensive force.

10. We are left with a system where the aggressive force is likely to take the upper hand.

11. Knowledge of the system defines the attitude and relationship of the bearers of force, aggressive and defensive.

12. In a system, inbalanced in favour of the aggressive force, the bearer of the aggressive force is more confident in his ability to use force.

13. In a balanced system, the aggressive force knows to expect a strong defensive force, which may play a part of the decision to use force.

14. With the assumption that criminals will have guns, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, the system can only be balanced or inbalanced in favour of the aggressive force.


Furthermore, your terrorist (overused word in today's word, by the way) relies on covert techniques, but you make the flawed assumption that everyone is advantaged if they act like the said terrorist. If, unlike in your example, it is assumed that anyone CAN own and carry a gun, the knowledge, as opposed to ignorance, of that fact, may be reflected in the decisions of the bearers of aggressive force and result in a lower confidence of the aggressor in his ability to use force, and therefore, it is expected that the use of overt, aggressive force will fall into decline.

If you mean that a "terrorist" will find it easier to blend into an environment where others are armed, I will point out that they have thus far found it easy to blend into environments where nobody is armed.

In the interest of the word "terrorist" itself, however, it is simply an agent of terror, that is, one whose actions can be construed as having the purpose of terrorizing, spreading terror, that is, fear. The media champions that role. Cheers.

Agapooka

Ridd1ck wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:which is what i've been saying all along

It's Rocky and Kit that have my dander up.....

lol

Agapooka wrote:

ROCKY wrote:

Jack wrote:Criminals do not care if guns are illegal, they do not care about laws, that is why we call them criminals. Almost all gun crimes are committed with guns that were obtained illegally. So, that falls that argument falls hard in the face of fact.

You mean the situations where law abiding citizens successfully defend themselves and their property from criminals? What kind of **Filtered** up world do you live in where you want to make it easier on the thieves?

OK. Slightly flawed argument there. When a terrorist sets himself up in front of a hotel/police building/hospital/anywhere and blows himself up, he almost certainly has the advantage because he's unlikely to reveal what he's carrying around and his mere presence infront of any one of the said buildings isn't enough to carry suspicion. In other words, he can carry out the deed without so much as a hinting at his intentions.

If I understood Jack's argument, your response makes no sense or is irrelevant.

My understanding of Jack's argument is the following. I'll break it down for you and if you still think it's flawed, point out the flaw instead of going on an irrelevant tangent.

1. Law abiding citizens can only have guns if it is legal to purchase guns.

2. Criminals can use illegal means to acquire guns.

3. Whether or not it is legal to own guns, criminals will have access to guns.

4. Law abiding citizens do not have access to guns if it is illegal to own guns.

5. In cases where it is illegal to own guns, criminals can be armed with firearms, but law abiding citizens cannot.

6. In cases where it is illegal to own guns, law abiding citizens are less capable of using force than criminals are.

7. Criminals are ready to use force aggressively.

8. Law abiding citizens can be ready to use force, but defensively.

9. In cases where it is illegal to own guns and citizens are less capable of using force than criminals are, we have a system where the aggressive force is likely to be stronger than the defensive force.

10. We are left with a system where the aggressive force is likely to take the upper hand.

11. Knowledge of the system defines the attitude and relationship of the bearers of force, aggressive and defensive.

12. In a system, inbalanced in favour of the aggressive force, the bearer of the aggressive force is more confident in his ability to use force.

13. In a balanced system, the aggressive force knows to expect a strong defensive force, which may play a part of the decision to use force.

14. With the assumption that criminals will have guns, regardless of whether or not it is illegal, the system can only be balanced or inbalanced in favour of the aggressive force.


Furthermore, your terrorist (overused word in today's word, by the way) relies on covert techniques, but you make the flawed assumption that everyone is advantaged if they act like the said terrorist. If, unlike in your example, it is assumed that anyone CAN own and carry a gun, the knowledge, as opposed to ignorance, of that fact, may be reflected in the decisions of the bearers of aggressive force and result in a lower confidence of the aggressor in his ability to use force, and therefore, it is expected that the use of overt, aggressive force will fall into decline.

If you mean that a "terrorist" will find it easier to blend into an environment where others are armed, I will point out that they have thus far found it easy to blend into environments where nobody is armed.

In the interest of the word "terrorist" itself, however, it is simply an agent of terror, that is, one whose actions can be construed as having the purpose of terrorizing, spreading terror, that is, fear. The media champions that role. Cheers.

Agapooka

I don't think my response was irrelevant. For a start, you've only replied to a very small subset of the post, which was in response to a very small subset of Jack's post that I didn't want to let slip without arguing. It wasn't meant as a counter to his main point. For that, read the rest.

Furthermore, you've ignored the point that there can be no balanced system because the criminal element is not bound to laws, whereas law-abiding citizens are. As previously stated, guns can even the playing field, but they can't balance it. The question then becomes, how much does it even the playing field, and do the risks and advantages necessarily work out in our favour.

You say that I made the flawed assumption that everybody has the advantage if in the "terrorist's" position (I admit it was an extremely bad choice of word). How so? In this case specifically, the perpretrator will have no qualms about going up against armed citizens because they are unlikely to help a great deal (we're talking about a suicide bomber here). But that's not the point. Even if both sides are armed, the perpetrator has several advantages. In some states, the victim has a duty to retreat (as already mentioned), the perpetrator has likely undergone preparation for the task (if he is a professional), he has the element of surprise. Jack even made the helpful point that he can use illegitimate means to arm himself, when such means are unavailable to law-abiding citizens. Yes, you are right that gun possession can discourage criminals - as I said, it can even the playing field - but again, one can't hope to balance it. And again, then we are forced to ask other questions.

Kit-Fox wrote:

Ridd1ck wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:which is what i've been saying all along

You have I will give you that. It's Rocky and Kit that have my dander up.....

I fail to see how as I have already stated that I am indeed pro sensible gun ownership.

If i wasnt you'd have seen Jack ripping into me already as I seem to be one of his favorite targets here

Granted, I reread you posts, I apologize Kit, but Rocky is like talking to "Billary Clinton". He's right no matter what evidence is presented. As a former Ploice Officer, I KNOW it's better to be armed with a firearm in defense of your home than not to be. Been there, Done that. I also carry in public BECAUSE I was a cop and there are MANY I put in jail that have vowed to kill me when they get out of prison. One has already tried and if I hadn't been armed when he tried, I would most likely be dead and so would several other ppl around me. Because as a rule, few criminals can shoot worth a crap and generally "spray and pray".
So me being legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon most likely saved my life as well as others. Granted me being the cop that put him in prison was WHY he wanted to kill me, but I was just doing my job. But there are other examples of legally armed citizens foiling bank robberies and other armed robberies by having there firearms on them in public.

ROCKY wrote:For a start, you've only replied to a very small subset of the post, which was in response to a very small subset of Jack's post that I didn't want to let slip without arguing.

I replied to that to which I felt like replying.

ROCKY wrote:Furthermore, you've ignored the point that there can be no balanced system because the criminal element is not bound to laws, whereas law-abiding citizens are. As previously stated, guns can even the playing field, but they can't balance it. The question then becomes, how much does it even the playing field, and do the risks and advantages necessarily work out in our favour.

Theoretically, a balanced system would be one where law-abiding citizens would have the same recourse as the criminal to force and the same access as the criminal to force. This would balance an overt system. A covert system is, granted, much more complex. Otherwise, we, as you said, only even out partially.

ROCKY wrote:You say that I made the flawed assumption that everybody has the advantage if in the "terrorist's" position (I admit it was an extremely bad choice of word). How so? In this case specifically[...]

Because most people's situations will never, in any way, shape or form, ressemble your "in this case specifically". Every situation is different. In some situations, one gains an edge through covert means, whereas in others, the edge is gain through common knowledge of a fact. If theoretically speaking, it is common knowledge that everyone is armed to the teeth, it is likely that violence will decrease in a sort of stalemate.

ROCKY wrote:the perpretrator will have no qualms about going up against armed citizens because they are unlikely to help a great deal (we're talking about a suicide bomber here).

Yet we're talking about guns, their legality and effectiveness to support their legal status. Suicide bombers aren't exactly problems with which most people in the western world are faced. In fact, they're pretty non-existent and the only reason you know that such a practice exists is because of international media hype. Besides, most criminals do not have a complete disconcern for their own survival.

ROCKY wrote:But that's not the point. Even if both sides are armed, the perpetrator has several advantages.

Name those advantages. Seriously, are you still referring to the advantages held by a suicide bomber, because he has a complete disconcern for his survival? Oh, you mean the following "advantages"...

ROCKY wrote:In some states, the victim has a duty to retreat (as already mentioned)

Granted, although only in SOME states. I suppose it doesn't fall into the scope of this topic, but we could eventualy discuss the duty itself. In Canada, as per the criminal code, sections 40 and 41, one can use force to defend against unlawful entry. Section 42 gives individuals holding a dwelling under a claim of right the additional power of using force against a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it, who is entering the property peaceably with the intent of taking possession.

[spoiler]

Defence of dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
[...]
R.S., c. C-34, s. 41.

42. [...]
Trespasser provoking assault

(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or

(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,

assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 42.

[/spoiler]

ROCKY wrote:the perpetrator has likely undergone preparation for the task (if he is a professional)

Many criminals are not "professionals" as you put it. You ignore Jack's argument that a professional is likely to scope out his target and wait until such a time as the victim is NOT home. Unless we're dealing with a professional assassin, your point does not stand. If you're dealing with a professional assassin, I would hope that you're armed!!! But heck, maybe it's better if you're not. Maybe the laws of karma will decide that if you die on that day, in that situation, you'll reincarnate as a lightning-wielding demigod...

ROCKY wrote:he has the element of surprise.

I've always wanted to rig a silent alarm that would warn me and wake me through silent means (e.g. an alarm that soaks me in the face) when a perpetrator enters my house, and I'd take my blowgun and poison darts and wait behind a couch in the living room. HAH! Element of surprise is mine. Hmm, a motion-detector-activated camera would come in handy, too. Actually, in my home, the element of surprise would be tougher to get. XD

Agapooka

Jack, You da' MAN!!!

Some people are still living in the wild west lol... in ther heads...

Brdavs wrote:Some people are still living in the wild west lol... in ther heads...

No it's just the damn drug lords (Cartels) and gang bangers think they have the right to go anywhere and take anything they want. If you aren't armed to defend yourself, soon they WILL be able too. Especially on the border States, it's starting to get really bad.

Jack, i have to hand it to you pal, i've never seen anyone dissect and destroy someone's argument as thoroughly as you did in your 2nd to last post.


Rocky, if i was you mate, i'd call it a day while the going is still somewhat good lol

im calling it a day, but purely because i think its more of a matter of opinion and certain circumstances. Ill say now that id rather live in a society where a gun is not freely available and im sure many if not most will agree with me. That alone is technically a good enough argument. Jack makes a good argument but there are a few silly mistakes

Jack wrote:
ROCKY wrote:
The odds were linked to above. It's a very subjective argument to use for firearms. It is definitely not grounds alone to allow gun possession.

What? The odds are based on facts? I don't know what you're getting at with the subjective nonsense.

Jack wrote::lol: See my point about morality? It is entirely subjective.

I might have a go at making a post back later some time, possibly when i have enough time.

Rocky, in an ideal world i would agree with you, but we don't live in an ideal world.