Castle doctrine has another success

[Borachio]

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.

I appreciate this. And to be fair, it is easy, sometimes to forget it.

But it is, I still think, pretty much a matter of perception of risk. Road traffic accidents account for many more fatalities than attacks by robbers. (Or do they?) Yet they don't seem to provoke the same kind of fear of road transport, as armed robbery does for personal attack. (even for me that's a badly constructed sentence, but I'm not likely to improve it)

 

[kramerfan86]

So according to a yahoo news story it was in fact a knife. Honestly at that point it is still a tragedy clearly, but I certainly dont think the father did the wrong thing at that point.

 

[JohnRM]

I appreciate this. And to be fair, it is easy, sometimes to forget it.

But it is, I still think, pretty much a matter of perception of risk. Road traffic accidents account for many more fatalities than attacks by robbers. (Or do they?) Yet they don't seem to provoke the same kind of fear of road transport, as armed robbery does for personal attack. (even for me that's a badly constructed sentence, but I'm not likely to improve it)

Clearly you don't understand just how important safety ratings are to the average American shopping for an automobile. Afterall, Americans are the pioneers of automobile safety.

 

[JollyRoger]

Possessing a gun for self-defense is a personal choice that varies widely from person to person. Sweepingly applying the coward label isn't really fair at all. I certainly don't think of myself as cowardly or outrageously fearful.

Better to be pro choice than pro life on this issue.

 

[JohnRM]

Believe me, if I could wish the US to be like Europe at the snap of a finger, I'd do it, but the reality is that violence is pervasive in America. It isn't because of firearms, but rather that firearms are pervasive, because of the glorification and acceptance of violence.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I appreciate this. And to be fair, it is easy, sometimes to forget it.

But it is, I still think, pretty much a matter of perception of risk. Road traffic accidents account for many more fatalities than attacks by robbers. (Or do they?) Yet they don't seem to provoke the same kind of fear of road transport, as armed robbery does for personal attack. (even for me that's a badly constructed sentence, but I'm not likely to improve it)

Actually traffic accidents are pretty influential. Have you seen the monstrosities that most Americans like to drive? A lot of people drive them because they're safer to be in during an accident. They certainly don't drive them for the gas savings. Sucks for the guy in the little Accord though.

 

[Borachio]

And because you fear violence so much, while at the same time accepting it of course, you feel obliged to protect yourself with yet more firearms.

Um...there's a vicious circle here.

I wouldn't mind so much if this was just a matter within your own borders (or continent, since Latin America is even more wedded to violence), but you seem intent on exporting this paradigm via foreign policy. Or perhaps I do you an injustice.

Not that Europe hasn't had a glorious history of the same kind of thing, of course.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Better to be pro choice than pro life on this issue.

It's better than the abstinence-only approach.

 

[Borachio]

I'll abstain if you will.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's better than the abstinence-only approach.

I'm not sure we should be putting safety mechanisms on guns though.

 

[holy king]

In any case where one person attacks another, the latter is justified in using deadly force to defend himself

not where i live...

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure we should be putting safety mechanisms on guns though.

How about softer, slower, bigger bullets?

I quite like this idea.

edit: why not just not go around attacking each other in the first place? What a novel idea!

 

[Rashiminos]

How about softer, slower, bigger bullets?

I quite like this idea.

edit: why not just not go around attacking each other in the first place? What a novel idea!

Not everyone is looking to be peaceable if the 'opportunities' arise.

 

[Borachio]

Really? Why not?

 

[kramerfan86]

Because some people are psychopaths or desperate enough that they really dont care?

 

[Borachio]

Do you suggest people are simply born psychopaths? Or that desperation has no basis?

 

[Bugfatty300]

And because you fear violence so much, while at the same time accepting it of course, you feel obliged to protect yourself with yet more firearms.

Um...there's a vicious circle here.

I don't really see a cycle. Generally, I don't think Americans are any more fearful of violence than their peers. They're just adapted to the society they've inherited like everyone else.

I wouldn't mind so much if this was just a matter within your own borders (or continent, since Latin America is even more wedded to violence), but you seem intent on exporting this paradigm via foreign policy. Or perhaps I do you an injustice.

Heh, if American foreign policy was influenced by it's gun culture philosophy, then we'd be defending the rights of every country to be a nuclear power. Right to bear arms and all. I don't see how they're related though.

 

[Borachio]

They're related because of the casual acceptance of violence as a means of solving conflict.

And your insistence on your inalienable right to self-defence.

edit: which is fine. Except that it seems to lead inexorably to an escalation of violence. Especially if you allow pre-emptive strikes in the name of self-defence. Seems to me you might just as well allow a free for all, and have done with it.

 

[peter grimes]

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.

not where i live...

John, this is not true in Connecticut. I wrote about this concerning the trial I sat on. Self-defense is not at all a 'get out of jail free card'. Specific conditions have to be met, and from the little that's being reported on this, it's too early to tell here.

Granted, the NRA would like people to think that they are within their rights to shoot anyone who tries to enter their house without permission. I'd wager they even help draft legislation to that effect...

The result is that people think they need a gun to protect themselves, that the police are ineffective, that they are justified in killing someone who may not even pose a threat. Better to kill someone than risk that they might steal your laptop or cut your arm...

 

[Quackers]

They're related because of the casual acceptance of violence as a means of solving conflict.

And your insistence on your inalienable right to self-defence.

edit: which is fine. Except that it seems to lead inexorably to an escalation of violence. Especially if you allow pre-emptive strikes in the name of self-defence. Seems to me you might just as well allow a free for all, and have done with it.

you've made a lot assumptions in this thread. "If you make a lot of noise going down the stairs, the burglar will run away!" Will maybe in Borachio land. In the real world you do not have a clue what this intruder wants. He may be just a common thief, or he might be a murderer or sex attacker. Do you really want to risk your personal safety and your families safety on a flimsy assumption? Are you really going to run the risk of giving up your position and alerting a criminal by clumsily running down the stairs or are you going to find the heaviest weapon to-hand and sneak downstairs to investigate? (After phoning the police of course).