The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

Incapacitation is self defense. We'll jail that guy from last week and it's self defense. We'll kill him three years from now and it's still self defense. Now, we narrow the situations in which a private citizen can kill another private citizen in "self defense" to imminence. The state bears no such limitation.

Well, luckily, I have the capacity to make decisions at the margin. But yeah, the capitalist wants cheap inputs and doesn't care about animal suffering. We've seen this story many times. Inevitably, they required a change in laws.

Well, appeal and trust of centralized control/authority is no small input either. I'm still a little bewildered after a conversation couple/several months back when I mentioned California had just sold out people who repair their "own(I suppose it needs asterisks now)" equipment to Deere and GM. I then get chaff about old/small equipment being somehow inefficient when you can look up the efficiencies of different sized operations. The stress that favors large operations and shuts down small ones is in the margins. Small operations penny-pinch in fuel as well as other inputs, but bigger operations run them under in labor return(2nd, because operators often are willing to devalue thier own labor significantly) and in large capital outlays for buildings and machinery(which are the killer, often state sponsored. Thanks Deere). But it's California, so they must have air as their goal or somesuch other lie. <shrug> Everyone does it time to time, me too.

 

[El_Machinae]

No. It isn't consistent. Self defense hinges on the imminence of the threat. Otherwise, if the right survives the imminence, then you'd have a right to go hunt down and kill the guy who "threatened" you with a gun a week prior, out of "self defense".

You're insisting on 'imminence'. But this is more a proxy for 'certainty' or 'lack of reasonable alternatives'. The imminence is a tightening of certainty and of alternatives.

As I said, the objection to the death penalty is that it doesn't actually create a self-defence outcome. Not that the foundation is immoral.

One could use counter-examples. "Jailing kidnappers because jailing people who imprison others is wrong, lol". You intuitively know that jailing a kidnapper isn't the worst idea ever. But you also know what conditions are required for this policy to be justifiable.

 

[Lexicus]

You're insisting on 'imminence'. But this is more a proxy for 'certainty' or 'lack of reasonable alternatives'. The imminence is a tightening of certainty and of alternatives.

He's insisting on imminence because I assume that he, like me, is assuming self-defense requires the lack of alternatives. It's not just a matter of "tightening" of the alternatives: my position would be that self-defense only can be said to exist where there is no option other than exercising force yourself or being the victim of force. If other alternatives existed but were not taken then self-defense did not occur; something else was being defended.

A real-life application of this would be the case of a police officer who shoots a suspect approaching him with a knife. The alternative of simply backing away from the suspect existed; therefore the police officer was not actually defending herself, she was defending her right to not back down - to "stand her ground" if you will.

One could use counter-examples. "Jailing kidnappers because jailing people who jail is wrong, lol". You intuitively know that jailing a kidnapper isn't the worst idea ever. But you also know what conditions are required for this policy to be justifiable.

Out of curiosity, do you believe police officers who make wrongful arrests should be charged with kidnapping?

 

[El_Machinae]

Even imminence can be stymied by our instincts. If I Russian Roulette a revolver and point it at you, then a lot of our rules of thumb for whether you're allowed to shoot me are somewhat confounded. But we know the answer.

As for assuming the definition to create the conclusion, I guess that's that. If self-defense requires imminence, or it's not self-defense, then the conversation about whether the death penalty can be discussed in self-defense terms is a no-go.

Then it's just an argument about definitions.

 

[Lexicus]

As for assuming the definition to create the conclusion, I guess that's that. If self-defense requires imminence, or it's not self-defense, then the conversation about whether the death penalty can be discussed in self-defense terms is a no-go.

My position is that the death penalty cannot be discussed in self-defense terms. If you disagree, you're free to explain why the scenario Sommerswerd described (someone threatens you with a gun; a week later you track them down and kill them) is self-defense. The argument will get even more fun when you explain why it's also self-defense when a third party is tracking down and killing the gun-brandisher.

Then it's just an argument about definitions.

Well, it could be an argument about deeper moral issues but I think all of us agree with the premise that self-defense is morally acceptable.

 

[El_Machinae]

First explain the logic behind jailing a kidnapper

 

[Sommerswerd]

Incapacitation is self defense. We'll jail that guy from last week and it's self defense. We'll kill him three years from now and it's still self defense. Now, we narrow the situations in which a private citizen can kill another private citizen in "self defense" to imminence. The state bears no such limitation.

Once "the state" is the one doing the killing, we're talking about law and society not "natural" rights and calling that "self defense" of the state/community just confuses things. I've got no beef with the idea that the state/society defines what the rules and rights are, along with the punishments that go along with violating those rules as well as the circumstances for stripping/changing those rights.

My issue is that there is no "natural" right to anything. Rights, including the right to self-defense, come from law/societal agreement, because otherwise, there is no source for the rights... unless you want to identify some higher moral authority than man/society itself. If "natural" human rights come from god, fine. Folks should just say that and we can go from there. TBH the idea of "inalienable human rights" seems inseparable from the "endowed by the creator" part, because for the right to be inalienable, you need some source for the right, that is higher than man/society. Trying to separate "inalienable" from "creator" just ends up in frayed logic where we're calling the hanging a prisoner with his hands and feet bound "self defense".

 

[Lexicus]

First explain the logic behind jailing a kidnapper

There is the logic of revenge, which says the kidnapper hurt others, so must be hurt. There is the logic of "danger to society," which says that the kidnapper needs to be detained to protect other potential victims. There is the logic of "rehabilitation" which says that the kidnapper can develop in the necessary ways to become a productive and non-criminal member of society during the jailtime.

I can see gaping holes in all of these logics, which is why I tend to take a dim view of jails.

 

[Sommerswerd]

First explain the logic behind jailing a kidnapper

Simple. It's punishment for an act which society has determined is a crime.

 

[Farm Boy]

Once "the state" is the one doing the killing, we're talking about law and society not "natural" rights and calling that "self defense" of the state/community just confuses things. I've got no beef with the idea that the state/society defines what the rules and rights are, along with the punishments that go along with violating those rules as well as the circumstances for stripping/changing those rights.

My issue is that there is no "natural" right to anything. Rights, including the right to self-defense, come from law/societal agreement, because otherwise, there is no source for the rights... unless you want to identify some higher moral authority than man/society itself. If "natural" human rights come from god, fine. Folks should just say that and we can go from there. TBH the idea of "inalienable human rights" seems inseparable from the "endowed by the creator" part. Trying to separate them ends up in frayed logic where we're calling the hanging a prisoner with his hands and feet bound "self defense".

The secular theology of it is important. If it comes from the state it is appropriate for the state to change it by default or to allocate it unevenly to the popular in society. To call its source in the individual is to, at least claim, that it is apportioned in even shares upon creation. One is fine with prosecutorial discretion being excercised for 10 grand to a famous figure. The other wonders why discretion is lacking but for fame and fortune.

 

[El_Machinae]

Honestly, I have trouble seeing how the scenario where someone is trying to kill me as not self-defense. I can understand why we wouldn't want something like that to be legal, but that is a different question

Simple. It's punishment for an act which society has determined is a crime.

Really? That's the entirety of the logic? We punished because we declared it a crime?

Honestly, I consider it to be a right-wing trait where people serve Justice merely because Justice deserves to be served

 

[Sommerswerd]

There is the logic of revenge, which says the kidnapper hurt others, so must be hurt. There is the logic of "danger to society," which says that the kidnapper needs to be detained to protect other potential victims. There is the logic of "rehabilitation" which says that the kidnapper can develop in the necessary ways to become a productive and non-criminal member of society during the jailtime.

I can see gaping holes in all of these logics, which is why I tend to take a dim view of jails.

You left out another gem... "deterrence", ie discourage him and others from repeating the crime... which of course has its own logical holes...

 

[Lexicus]

You left out another gem... "deterrence", ie discourage him and others from repeating the crime... which of course has its own logical holes...

D'oh, I knew I was forgetting one! I was right! The Jedi are taking over!

Wait, scratch that last

 

[Sommerswerd]

The secular theology of it is important. If it comes from the state it is appropriate for the state to change it by default or to allocate it unevenly to the popular in society. To call its source in the individual is to, at least claim, that it is apportioned in even shares upon creation. One is fine with prosecutorial discretion being excercised for 10 grand to a famous figure. The other wonders why discretion is lacking but for fame and fortune.

Aye there's the rub isn't it? Because if my right to a gun the state giveth... then the state can taketh away... but if my right comes from god then no one except god can take it away... even better... if my right comes from "cause I say so" then no one can question it.

The problem with "cause I say so" though... is that there is no limit to what rights I can declare are inalienable. "I have the "natural" right to set a huge bonfire in the middle of the street cause fires occur universally in nature all the time so my very existence gives me the right to set fires"

 

[Farm Boy]

It's deeper than guns here. You have to pull out at least to the pearl necklaces to hit "gunz."

 

[El_Machinae]

You left out another gem... "deterrence", ie discourage him and others from repeating the crime... which of course has its own logical holes...

What is the hole?

I don't think it has a logical hole, it seems to have an efficacy problem. If you perceive a logical hole, I'm very curious

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's deeper than guns here. You have to pull out at least to the pearl necklaces to hit "gunz."

Sure, of course, but the thread is about "mah gunz". Keep it funny.

What is the hole? I don't think it has a logical hole, it seems to have an efficacy problem. If you perceive a logical hole, I'm very curious

There are multiple holes, but for just a couple examples... deterrence in the form of mandatory minimum sentences can only work when people are actually aware of the penalty. Most folks don't even find out what the potential sentence is until after they've already been arrested/charged. So deterrence is a farce as it relates to those folks.

Another problem, is that deterrence only works on people who think they will be caught. If they don't think they are going to get caught then the penalties are irrelevant. Most people wouldn't commit crimes in the first place if they thought there was a good chance they'd be caught. Ever notice how everyone drives the speed limit when there is a visible police car on the road? If the state wanted to protect public safety by deterring people from speeding, they would have highly visible squad cards on the highway... but since they're most interested in collecting fines, the police hide in ambush instead.

With respect to discouraging recidivism, deterrence only works if the released convict has other attractive, viable options. If they have little choice but to return to crime and/or no assistance in changing their ways, or even if a return to crime is the path of least resistance, then the prospect of being convicted again isn't an effective deterrent.

Again, those are just a few holes in the deterrence theory of criminal punishment.

 

[Farm Boy]

Those are problems with deterrence not working on the ground 100% often through implementation error, not basic the basic principle, which is also still not 0%. A squad parked on the side of the road, visibly, slows traffic. It's extraordinarily effective. Applied right is also where guns reside in the right to kill to live. Seeing as we're in, through, and past killing cows and chickens to eat, I think it's a legitimate to point out we've burrowed way past a dirty deplorable peasant possessing effective and actionable force against a proud, upstanding, and socially/legally useful knight.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure, of course, but the thread is about "mah gunz". Keep it funny. There are multiple holes, but for just a couple examples... deterrence in the form of mandatory minimum sentences can only work when people are actually aware of the penalty. Most folks don't even find out what the potential sentence is until after they've already been arrested/charged. So deterrence is a farce as it relates to those folks.

Another problem, is that deterrence only works on people who think they will be caught. If they don't think they are going to get caught then the penalties are irrelevant. Most people wouldn't commit crimes in the first place if they thought there was a good chance they'd be caught. Ever notice how everyone drives the speed limit when there is a visible police car on the road? If the state wanted to protect public safety by deterring people from speeding, they would have highly visible squad cards on the highway... but since they're most interested in collecting fines, the police hide in ambush instead.

With respect to discouraging recidivism, deterrence only works if the released convict has other attractive, viable options. If they have little choice but to return to crime and/or no assistance in changing their ways, or even if a return to crime is the path of least resistance, then the prospect of being convicted again isn't an effective deterrent.

Again, those are just a few holes in the deterrence theory of criminal punishment.

I pretty well agree. It's a function of efficacy. So, not so much a logical hole as just an admission that it doesn't work like it's supposed to work. Keep in mind, way up thread I was saying that the death penalty doesn't work as intended, and that was the reason why I didn't like it.

Jailing kidnappers lacks a certain internal coherence, the idea that we jail people because we think that imprisoning people is wrong is... Incoherent. But we understand that deterrence would be a function of justifying. If the deterrence was efficacious, we would have an easier time understanding that is a good idea.

 

[El_Machinae]

You left out another gem... "deterrence", ie discourage him and others from repeating the crime... which of course has its own logical holes...

So, 'deterrence' is an effect based on a matrix: it's a function of the perceived probability of being caught, the benefit of committing the crime, and the predicted penalty (plus others I'm missing). Each of those variables can be changed to influence the odds of deterrence being effective. But 'deterrence' is a fair portion of our underlying reason for having a Criminal Justice system. It's not perfect. It needs to be better. But we're okay with deterrence being a goal - we're just arguing about the efficacy of the various inputs.

This is why we're willing to jail a kidnapper. It's not just rehabilitation, by no means. (full disclosure: I don't view 'punishment in service of Justice' as morally worthy ... so, I usually just don't understand that viewpoint). We're jailing kidnappers in order to protect ourselves from kidnapping. A deterred kidnapper is the goal, in the end. We're not trying to jail all kidnappers. We're trying to get no kidnappings.

If the death penalty had some type of real deterrence effect, then I don't think it would be immoral to have one. You'd be killing someone in order to prevent other deaths. It's all a probabilistic argument, but it's also law-of-large-numbers. It would require a certain set of conditions of deterrence for a death penalty to prevent more murders than it causes (the death penalty being a 'caused death'), but that's about it.

We're not "killing people to show people that killing is wrong", it's "we're killing people who kill to deter killing". If the killing deterred killing, then it's killing to prevent killing.