Castle doctrine has another success

[peter grimes]

What if I'm assaulted by 5 million armed Chinamen? Clearly the right to own and operate nuclear armaments is necessary for my survival.

What if you're being surrounded by a ring of hostile military bases? Clearly the right to own and operate nuclear armaments is necessary for Iran's survival.

j/k, sort of.

That's the other problem I have with this whole line of discussion - it focuses on the very rare instance where an intruder is actually going to try and hurt you, overshadowing the far more likely and relatively common situations where there is no threat to life and limb.

But sure is a lot more fun to talk in hypothetical absolutes

 

[FriendlyFire]

That's why I always go for headshots, don't come out of cover until my shields recharge, and hop like a bunny while reloading.

I endorse the headshots, but bunny hopping isnt going to help very much against zombies.

 

[Yeekim]

I must say I agree with those who say the dad acted entirely reasonably, provided the story is enirely true, of course.

If my neighbor, who also happens to me my sister, calls me in the middle of the night and says there is an intruder AND if the police is unlikely to arrive in time, then hell yes, I will grab a weapon and go investigate myself.

Now, sure, I will yell at the suspicious masked figure before shooting at him, asking who he is and what he wants. If his reaction is to lunge at me with a knife, then I'll shoot.

If it turns out to be my son (!?), I have raised a suicidal idiot who wouldn't, in all likelihood, have grown old anyway.

Of course, the last part seems so completely unlikely it leads me to suspect that the father, in fact, shot before asking any questions.

 

[Traitorfish]

The human body is nowhere near as fragile as movies and tv make it out to be.

And yet, simultaneously, far more fragile. Movies are kinda stupid like that.

 

[ace99]

And yet, simultaneously, far more fragile. Movies are kinda stupid like that.

Right, if you're close enough to an explosion that it knocks you to the ground, you're probably not getting up from that. On the other hand your chances of surviving a bullet are pretty decent.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Right, if you're close enough to an explosion that it knocks you to the ground, you're probably not getting up from that. On the other hand your chances of surviving a bullet are pretty decent.

The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers says you're wrong here. All you have to do is a ninja flip as you get blown over, get up and dust yourself off. Duh

 

[Bugfatty300]

That's the other problem I have with this whole line of discussion - it focuses on the very rare instance where an intruder is actually going to try and hurt you, overshadowing the far more likely and relatively common situations where there is no threat to life and limb.

Well that's the idea isn't it?

Obviously using a gun shouldn't entail shooting someone in the back who is running away. Why wouldn't a hypothetical discussion about justifiably shooting someone not primarily focus on dangerous threats as opposed to non-existent ones?

 

[peter grimes]

I didn't say non-existent. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Farm Boy]

A lot depends on the calibre. Doesn't it?

I favour the old knock 'em over the head with a lump of wood technique. Silent, deadly, highly effective, especially when they're looking the other way.

edit: you naturally have your own portable nuke, in the bedroom closet. Hear a noise, creep downstairs, nuke the baskets.

I'll admit I'm not catching up on 10 pages but I'll address this specifically.

Caliber matters, but people don't die the way the movies lead you to believe and they don't fire guns like in the movies when they're in a panic, scared, and angry either.

Guns are very good at inflicting mortal wounds. If you shoot somebody 3 times in center mass randomly it is terribly likely that without very timely medical assistance those wounds are going to kill them. They likely aren't immediately lethal either. He may run away and die in a little while, he may charge and have time to attack in melee, he will likely shoot back if also carrying a gun. It takes a lot of gun to have the bullets knock somebody on their butt. A .45 might do that, it might not. That's already a pretty big handgun. More common would be a 9mm. That isn't likely to knock somebody down even if it does lead to their death.

The whole "shoot to incapacitate without killing" thing doesn't really exist. If you try trickshots(which you aren't when you are scared for your life) to legs or arms or whatnot you may miss entirely and it's entirely probable for a leg shot to be a mortal wound anyways depending on what blood vessels you hit. No, anytime you aim a firearm at somebody it is assumed you are doing so because you are threatening to make them die. If you pull the trigger you aren't threatening anymore - you're trying to kill them.

 

[Borachio]

Ewww! Guns really just aren't for me. I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone. No matter what they do or threaten.

As for being charged, treat them like a bull and nimbly step and turn to one side just as they reach you. So they go crashing past, and you can giggle.

 

[peter grimes]

Ewww! Guns really just aren't for me. I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone. No matter what they do or threaten.

As for being charged, treat them like a bull and nimbly step and turn to one side just as they reach you. So they go crashing past, and you can giggle.

This only works if the picadors have placed the lances properly. They prevent the bull from being able to thrash his head far to either side as well as limiting the head's ability to use the horns in a lifting motion.

Only a fool torero would attempt to dance the bull if the picadors failed.

 

[Borachio]

OK

Plan B.

Run skippily towards the charging bull, grasp it firmly by the horns and vault gracefully along its spine. Land lightly. Bow and acknowledge applause from the audience.

 

[bhsup]

Meanwhile in reality land, another man lies dead in Reno...

 

[dutchfire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_in_Reno ? They're not even from Reno...

 

[bhsup]

Heh, I didn't even know they existed. It was actually a Johnny Cash/Folsom Prison reference.

 

[Borachio]

In reality land, no one has ever shot me dead. Not even a little bit.

Not even just to watch me die. I would have noticed.

 

[innonimatu]

You're not seriously trying to argue that doctrines that dictate courts and governments should also apply to individual cases of self-defense? Because that's not a very good path to go down. Trust me, I've been there and done that. But if you really want to then by all means. At least it will be different than Poster A versus Poster B.

I know it's not feasible to enforce such a thing systematically. But I do think that even trying to do it (knowing that many times people would still, in doubt, shoot perceived threats) would be for the greater good. Some countries (most?) kind of do this already: if you kill someone else it had better be a crystal clear case of self-defense with no possible other alternative. You don't get to legally assume they're out to kill you. And they probably are not.
We get offended at how some people who stood their ground or just shot out of fear get punished. It's a hard thing to balance, I know. It probably works well only in places where violence is rare, but not in places where it is seen as common. An interesting question is weather this kind of attitude plays a role in transitioning a place from one of this categories to the other...

 

[Farm Boy]

Unlikely much of a role is any. I think other factors probably play a much more pronounced role in the overall rate of violence. It's more a choice as to how we react to that violence which does occur.