Castle doctrine has another success

[dutchfire]

Breakins do in fact happen, rarity doesnt change that. Cops rarely are going to get there before you encounter the robber, especially in rural areas. Im not quite sure how you have so much trouble envisioning where it would be beneficial to have one.

Considering how much you missed my point, I hope your aim with a gun is better if you ever want to use it.

 

[kramerfan86]

So, what do you people want victims to do? Call the police while their sister is getting stabbed to death in their own home? This man did what any reasonable person would.

No you just assume the best and then if its the worst, oops i suppose.

And once again, I am aware of the fact I used the rarity argument both directions. I was aware of it the moment I was doing it and I already explained why I did so. If you dislike it Im not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[Borachio]

Breakins do in fact happen, rarity doesnt change that. Cops rarely are going to get there before you encounter the robber, especially in rural areas. Im not quite sure how you have so much trouble envisioning where it would be beneficial to have one.

Look. You have a gun. Robber knows you're likely to have a gun. Robber takes along a bigger gun. You hear a noise downstairs. You grab your gun, and go to confront the robber.

How is this going to be beneficial? What's the likely outcome?

I live in a country where gun ownership is very rare. I hear a noise downstairs. I make lots of noise going down. Thief runs off.

 

[kramerfan86]

Look. You have a gun. Robber knows you're likely to have a gun. Robber takes along a bigger gun. You hear a noise downstairs. You grab your gun, and go to confront the robber.

How is this going to be beneficial? What's the likely outcome?

I live in a country where gun ownership is very rare. I hear a noise downstairs. I make lots of noise going down. Thief runs off.

Its your house, you know the layout much better than the thief and have the advantage of surprise, it is more likely to end well for you than them. Now if you live alone retreat and calling the cops is wisest, but if you have small children or something a tactical retreat isnt likely to be a viable option unfortunately.

And yes your country gun ownership is rare, which does make this debate a bit pointless because for your situation your argument is completely correct, unfortunately here encounters with a thief are much more likely to end poorly. The gun laws though are a separate debate though.

 

[JohnRM]

Look. You have a gun. Robber knows you're likely to have a gun. Robber takes along a bigger gun. You hear a noise downstairs. You grab your gun, and go to confront the robber.

How is this going to be beneficial? What's the likely outcome?

Statistically speaking, most criminals that carry firearms carry small-to-midsize handguns. Most homeowners use a shotgun for self-defense. They can bring a semi-automatic rifle if they want, but they will be at the disadvantage.

+1 Homeowners.

I live in a country where gun ownership is very rare. I hear a noise downstairs. I make lots of noise going down. Thief runs off.

Well, in this country, the reality is that there are a few hundred million firearms out there and gun ownership is not going away anytime soon.

 

[Borachio]

Well, in this country, the reality is that there are a few hundred million firearms out there and gun ownership is not going away anytime soon.

No, I can see that. Indeed it looks like it's going to get worse.

 

[kramerfan86]

No, I can see that. Indeed it looks like it's going to get worse.

Honestly there are so many of them at this point even with a ban I dont think we would ever get to the point where we could proclaim guns were rare here. It is too late IMO

 

[Bugfatty300]

I have a lot of difficulty envisaging situations where having a gun is likely to be of help.

I can, though, see a lot situations where a gun is going to be a liability.

There is, too, the matter of an arms race between potential attacker and potential victim. To be honest, I'd rather be attacked by someone with a knife than a gun, and someone with his fists alone rather than with a knife.

Well, no one wants to be attacked with a weapon. But victims don't typically get to dictate the circumstances.

And there is no such arms race. A person with nefarious violent intentions will choose his weapon based on all kinds of factors, but mostly on how effective the weapon will be in furthering his goals. Maybe the goal is getting quick cash or maybe murdering multiple innocent people. The victim has no control over that, armed or not.

 

[JohnRM]

No, I can see that. Indeed it looks like it's going to get worse.

So, given that fact, what would you have a vulnerable homeowner do? Calling the police simply will not protect you, in most cases. The US still has a large rural population that cannot afford to wait for law enforcement. What would you have them do?

 

[dutchfire]

Elect politicians that will invest in crime-preventing measures?

 

[kramerfan86]

Elect politicians that will invest in crime-preventing measures?

Good luck with that, with the budget cuts happening its actually moving in the opposite direction. Less police, less programs, early prison releases due to too many prisoners.

 

[Leoreth]

No you just assume the best and then if its the worst, oops i suppose.

And what if people assume the worst and if it isn't, "oops I suppose"? Because that's what happened in the case that sparked this discussion.

 

[Borachio]

Well, no one wants to be attacked with a weapon. But victims don't typically get to dictate the circumstances.

And there is no such arms race. A person with nefarious violent intentions will choose his weapon based on all kinds of factors, but mostly on how effective the weapon will be in furthering his goals. Maybe the goal is getting quick cash or maybe murdering multiple innocent people. The victim has no control over that, armed or not.

And also what the penalties are? And what situations he's likely to encounter.

Multiple killers out on a spree are thankfully quite rare. Wait. No. This is the US you're talking about.

I have to ask myself, why does this happen in one of the richest, and most religiously inclined, countries in the world?

The victim is in control of his own response.

 

[kramerfan86]

And what if people assume the worst and if it isn't, "oops I suppose"? Because that's what happened in the case that sparked this discussion.

Until I know what the supposed object is Im not proclaiming this as a "it isnt" situation. if it ends up being a knife then the fact it was his son really doesnt change the fact it was a self defense situation.

 

[Leoreth]

And it doesn't trouble you that people end up shooting their own children because of this conception of self defense?

 

[Borachio]

Until I know what the supposed object is Im not proclaiming this as a "it isnt" situation. if it ends up being a knife then the fact it was his son really doesnt change the fact it was a self defense situation.

Somehow, I don't think the self-defence argument is going to mean much to the father.

 

[kramerfan86]

And it doesn't trouble you that people end up shooting their own children because of this conception of self defense?

In that scenario I would be more alarmed by the fact the child for some reason lunged at their own parent with a knife than the parent defending themselves.

 

[JohnRM]

In any case where one person attacks another, the latter is justified in using deadly force to defend himself, regardless of his relationship to the attacker. Even if it were me, I'd be torn apart by the fact that it was my own child, but I'd still have been justified. If I knew it were my own son, I'd have let him kill me, but I'd be wrong to do so.

 

[Borachio]

If I knew it were my own son, I'd have let him kill me, but I'd be wrong to do so.

Really? I don't see that as being wrong. To kill him is to say his life is worth less than yours. Is this a valid calculation?

And aren't you responsible for your son's actions until he reaches majority? I can't untangle this.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And also what the penalties are? And what situations he's likely to encounter.

Multiple killers out on a spree are thankfully quite rare. Wait. No. This is the US you're talking about.

I have to ask myself, why does this happen in one of the richest, and religiously inclined, countries in the world?

Lots of shootings compared to other developed countries?

Because there are lots and lots and lots of guns. More guns per person than any other country on earth by a massive margin. This is something that people in Europe really can't seem to appreciate or grasp.

Then combine that with contrasting poverty and wealth inequality and pitiful mental health care. Is it really a wonder why the US has more shootings than other developed nations?

This is kind of why I think it's a little unfair to judge Americans for keeping guns for self-defense purposes. They live in a completely different world than say an European, even though they seem to be outwardly very similar.