PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

brickhistory 4th Nov 2014 17:14

I voted today for various local, state, and national elected positions.


I also bought another 400 rounds of ammo.


Something poetic there...

galaxy flyer 4th Nov 2014 17:27

PTT

You're the misunderstanding the slippery slope. Bloomburg, former mayor of NYC, is the engineer on the anti-gun train in the US. Not surprisingly, he's also engineer on the anti-soda, anti-GMO, asking for all kinds of nanny laws.

The strawman here is the idea that our side wants a post-apocaypse, Mad Max world of no government. We just want to respected as lawful gun owners that aren't murderers and sociopaths. Owning and carrying isn't grounds for obstructing our rights.

GF

mixture 4th Nov 2014 17:59


Guys, all I can say it is absolutely incredible that your country has come to the point where carrying a kitchen knife (in the open, in public, on your person, covered, uncovered, whatever, etc. etc.) requires "a reasonable excuse" and that you can be arrested, charged, and convicted if you don't have a "reasonable excuse". Who the hell decides what is "reasonable"?
Dushan,

It may seem odd to you Yanks, but the heavy use of "reasonable" in English law ever since medieval England demonstrates the quality and fairness of the English justice system.

As per Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1


Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt....No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.
I think you know very well what "reasonable" means .... perhaps an easier example for you to understand would be in the context of someone stopped by the Police with a set of lock-picks in the vicinity of a crime scene.... if a reasonable excuse for possession of the lock-picks is given without hesitation to the Police officer, then you're not going to be arrested are you !

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 18:09

Not exactly how I see it, from previous posts.

It seems that you would be arrested, charged, and tried, and during the trial you would have to prove their presence as reasonable, and if accepted you would be freed. Of course your idea of reasonable and prosecution's may differ, but they don't have to prove "unreasonable". The onus of proof is yours, for reasonable.


Not exactly "innocent until proven guilty".

BenThere 4th Nov 2014 18:29

Further, I see the defense of one's household, property, and family as quintessentially reasonable, even if violence is required.

UK law, from what I can construe, has failed to assert the reasonableness of that "inalienable" right, which is life. Instead, it seems, the first target is the resident defending what he values. The criminal instigating the crime is protected.

PTT 4th Nov 2014 19:19

BenThere

Then why are the prices you pay for alcohol, tobacco and gasoline roughly 75% composed of taxes?
It amuses me that you see that as the same as a ban or "draconian" in some way. Alcohol and tobacco cost the country money in the form of the NHS, so the users of those substances damn well should pay for it (and yes, I do drink); roads need to be built, and I think that having those which use them pay the most makes sense: in fact, I'd rather do away with road tax and increase fuel duty but that's bad for business.

galaxy flyer - no, I understand the slippery slope perfectly well. It is a slippery slope argument to say "what next?" when nobody is actually saying that. Blame Bloomberg all you want, but him being an "engineer" of these movements does not automatically make them viable.

The strawman here is the idea that our side wants a post-apocaypse, Mad Max world of no government.
Indeed it is, and I said as much. It's as much of a strawman as to suggest that "our side" wants some sort of vegetarian hippy commune where we all cycle to the smoke-free campfire and sing songs of joy. Which is why I suggested sticking to the argument being made.

mixture 4th Nov 2014 19:50


Further, I see the defense of one's household, property, and family as quintessentially reasonable, even if violence is required.
No, only the Yanks see it necessary to resort to childish violence.

Blowing the brains out of another human being just because they broke into your house and tried to steal your TV is disproportional and unreasonable.

In Europe the tendency is not to take the law into your own hands, the US on the other hand seems to be living off the memories of Wild West movies they watched as children.

BenThere 4th Nov 2014 20:00

Well, you go your way and I'll go mine.

BOING 4th Nov 2014 20:41

Mixture

Blowing the brains out of another human being just because they broke into your house and tried to steal your TV is disproportional and unreasonable.
No mixture, I don't blow his brains out because he is stealing my TV, I blow his brains out because he forced entry into my home in the first place.

How am I to know his intent, perhaps we should have a little discussion, I say "stop, or I shoot", he says "It's OK, I only came for your TV", so I say "Oh, that's OK then, carry, sorry to bother you".

Your comments never do anything but distort other peoples posts posts with a ridiculous comment.

.

PTT 4th Nov 2014 20:59


I don't blow his brains out because he is stealing my TV, I blow his brains out because he forced entry into my home in the first place.
The penalty for trespass is death now? Is that reasonable?

Holy crap, it seems it is the penalty for trespass in some states:
"...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." - Colorado law.
Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing in your house.

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 21:03


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8728170)

Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing in your house.

And I find it utterly crazy that you would not use all available force to stop someone who entered your house, forcefully, and whose intent you do not know.

Lonewolf_50 4th Nov 2014 21:16


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8728170)
Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing in your house.

And I find you crazy for taking that position. The cops can't be everywhere. If you wish to not defend yourself, that's a choice, and certainly yours to make. Please don't demand that others adopt your mania.

Hempy 4th Nov 2014 21:18

I guess it all boils down to the value you put on a human life. For all their bible bashing, religious zeal and evangelism, the US is about the most Godless place on the planet.

BenThere 4th Nov 2014 21:22


Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing in your house.
There is the disconnect. I find someone entering my home by force or stealth absolutely intolerable. It's a violation of the sanctity of my home and a threat to the family. It's a capital crime to me.

Anyone who would enter or invade someone else's home uninvited is a social liability, a no good. The world is better off without them.

That's the least palatable statement you've made here, PTT.

As for you, Hempy, I don't think you have a clue.

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 21:25


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8728196)
I guess it all boils down to the value you put on a human life. For all their bible bashing, religious zeal and evangelism, the US is about the most Godless place on the planet.

With same sentiments as Ben's, the creature forcefully entering my home is not human. He is a threat to be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

The Holy Bible has no place in this.

brickhistory 4th Nov 2014 21:55


Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing
in your house.
Lie back and think of England.

Stiff upper lip.

Public school boy.


I start to understand...

PTT 4th Nov 2014 22:14

Dushan

And I find it utterly crazy that you would not use all available force to stop someone who entered your house, forcefully, and whose intent you do not know.
I'd use all necessary force, but not all available force. There is a difference.

Lonewolf_50

And I find you crazy for taking that position. The cops can't be everywhere. If you wish to not defend yourself, that's a choice, and certainly yours to make. Please don't demand that others adopt your mania.
Where did I say that I could not defend myself? Stop strawmanning.

BenThere

It's a violation of the sanctity of my home and a threat to the family. It's a capital crime to me.
I find that attitude nuts, I really do. It may not be a palatable statement to you but it simply shows where my values lie in comparison to yours. That's not to say that one set is inherently better than the other, but it underlines some of the base assumptions which the two "sides" (and I don't think it is as simple as there being two sides) are making. I suspect there is a difference in the value of human life and, contrary to Dushan's latest comment, criminals are still human.

brickhistory - learn to read. Nothing wrong with self defence. Plenty wrong with kill on sight.

con-pilot 4th Nov 2014 22:20


criminals are still human
Let me fix that for you.

"Some criminals are human and need be treated that way, others are not and should be put down as one would put down a rabid dog."

Problem is, you don't know which type is forcing their way into your home in the middle of the night. Here there is a good chance that they are armed.

In the UK, not much of a chance of that. But still…..

BenThere 4th Nov 2014 22:21

You're in a different world than I am, PTT.

Home invaders in my world torture, rape, and kill their victims. Yours must be nicer, hence you feel they deserve your compassion. All the best.

PTT 4th Nov 2014 22:30

con-pilot - I disagree with your assertion about needing to be put down. They are all human and all deserve due process.

Here there is a good chance that they are armed.
Absolutely, and I have not questioned that, nor have I suggested that you should not be armed in order to be able to respond; in fact, I suggested training so you (generic, I know you personally are trained) would better be able to respond. The disconnect is not whether people are armed or not but whether you would shoot on sight or not.

BenThere - What, all of them? All of them do that? And I thought the America you lived in was "prosperous, working class, safe".

BenThere 4th Nov 2014 22:50

We keep it safe by being armed. Yet we live where violent home invasions are a threat, and do occur.

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 22:50


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8728277)
DushanI'd use all necessary force, but not all available force. There is a difference.

[.

How do you know what is necessary. Do you stop and ask? "Excuse me Mr. Criminal, what are your intentions? I need to know so I use the apropriate caliber and number of shots. Ah, you only have a knife. How long is it? I need to know so I use the same or smaller length from my kitchen drawer."

Double tap, center mass, one more if he twitches.

Lord Spandex Masher 4th Nov 2014 22:59


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8728334)
How do you know what is necessary. Do you stop and ask? "Excuse me Mr. Criminal, what are your intentions? I need to know so I use the apropriate caliber and number of shots. Ah, you only have a knife. How long is it? I need to know so I use the same or smaller length from my kitchen drawer."

Double tap, center mass, one more if he twitches.

Well that's not all available force is it? Doh.

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 23:08

What are you suggesting? That I empty the magazine and keep reloading all 8,000* rounds I have in the bottom drawer?





*then switch guns and use the remaining 4,000 of the other caliber.

PTT 4th Nov 2014 23:18

BenThere - so when you said that "the America I live in is as safe as anywhere" you meant that it is only safe in the sense that you can shoot back. You and I have different ideas of what safety is, I think.

Dushan - we call that skill "judgement" and, despite yet another strawman from you, is actually about deciding when to use what force you have available for best effect rather than simply using it all.

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 23:29

PTT, we are talking about the outcome, rather than the method/means, as started by your statement


Personally, I find it utterly crazy that you can kill someone for trespassing in your house.
So I would use whatever means to achieve that outcome. You can call it necessary, I call it available, but in the endd the intruder is neutralized; I am not talking about hopping on one leg with a .22 in the other.

PTT 4th Nov 2014 23:43

Dushan

we are talking about the outcome, rather than the method/means
No, we're talking about the fact that in many states someone just has to be an intruder in order for you to be able to kill him. That's barking, imo. It can be legal to kill a criminal in the UK in self defence, but not just because they broke in and you thought they were about to steal something.

You can call it necessary, I call it available
No, there's a big difference. If all that is necessary to remove the danger is for me to shout at the guy and he runs away then that is necessary. If I choose to shoot him, though, that is available (assuming I don't have a nuclear arsenal to hand).

Dushan 4th Nov 2014 23:57

You are going to shout and give up your location? Good luck with that one. I'd prefer that the last thing my intruder hears is the racking of tha slide.

Lord Spandex Masher 5th Nov 2014 00:07


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8728352)
What are you suggesting? That I empty the magazine and keep reloading all 8,000* rounds I have in the bottom drawer?

*then switch guns and use the remaining 4,000 of the other caliber.

You will note that I didn't suggest anything however, it was you who mentioned all available force.

Lord Spandex Masher 5th Nov 2014 00:10


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8728398)
You are going to shout and give up your location? Good luck with that one. I'd prefer that the last thing my intruder hears is the racking of tha slide.

Snigger. Nice one Hollywood.

BOING 5th Nov 2014 01:15

Mmmm, nice machete you have there.

I don't believe in that slide racking stuff, it gives your position away. However, my bullets are supersonic so nobody is going to hear anything. I have a wife and firearms collection, both of which are not going to end up in the wrong hands.

Nope, break the window glass and you are OK, enter the window, mind the curtains.



.

brickhistory 5th Nov 2014 01:44


Plenty wrong with kill on sight.
I actually agree with you.

It's sight, ID, then shoot to put the threat down. If doing so turns out to be lethal, well, these things happen...


Hopefully never to be exercised, but hoping is never a good plan.

galaxy flyer 5th Nov 2014 01:59

PTT,

When I said Bloomberg was the "engineer"; I meant the "nanny express" to a cocooned society where individuals are totally protected in a child-like state. Once a nanny; always a nanny. Bloomberg doesn't think anyone, but HIMSELF, can be responsible so he must protect them. Leftie Liberalism, practiced in the NYC, California, the UK and ?Europe is nothing but a overweening cadre of control freaks who know what's best for us lower orders. No thanks, enjoy your safety; I'll take my independence.

GF

421dog 5th Nov 2014 02:14

Just insert a prescient comment from our revolutionary forbears here:...

(they are manifold)

BOING 5th Nov 2014 05:13

Bumps in the night.
Confrontation. "Excuse me, what are you doing in my house, why did you break my window?"

"I came to steal your television. You are a have and I am a have not so I believe we should equalise the situation."

"Err, hold on a minute, I think I see a problem with that concept. If you steal my television you will be a have but I will be have not"

"Yes, but you forget you owe me payment for everything your colonial forebears did to my country. The television can only ever be a partial payment. You are lucky I do not take your house and car."

"Well, good point I suppose. Nice machete you have there, did you get it at Army and Navy ?"

"No, this has been in the family for generations, ever since Mau Mau."

"Well, I better give you a hand with the television, wouldn't want you hurting your back would we."

"Hold on. did I see a Christmas cake in the kitchen, I'll take that too. I love English traditions."


.

PTT 5th Nov 2014 06:59

This fundamental disagreement on the value of human life may well explain the excessively high murder rate in the US. If everyone else is potentially a "threat to be put down" then no wonder you all feel the need to carry a gun. Living in that kind of fear must be horrible.

galaxy flyer

I meant the "nanny express" to a cocooned society where individuals are totally protected in a child-like state.
Yes, I know. It remains a strawman.

John Hill 5th Nov 2014 07:03

It must be doubly bad for them. Living in fear of their government and in fear or all their neighbours too.:confused:

BOING 5th Nov 2014 07:21

Nope, not one second of fear. Worst danger is actually dumb drivers. That doesn't mean you ignore the other possibilities.

John Hill 5th Nov 2014 07:23


Originally Posted by BOING
Worst danger is actually dumb drivers.

Put bull bars on your truck.

http://www.autokit.com.au/resources/products/867/1.jpg

PTT 5th Nov 2014 08:45


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8728651)
Nope, not one second of fear. Worst danger is actually dumb drivers. That doesn't mean you ignore the other possibilities.

There's nothing wrong with fear: living without fear is living in ignorance of consequence, and there is no such thing as bravery without it. I'm sure dumb drivers are a worse consequence, and you wear a seatbelt because of it. Personally, I am fearful of idiots on the roads and act accordingly. The same appears to be true of you gents with your guns: you are fearful of what an intruder might do and you act accordingly. It's a fear I don't have to the same degree, and one which means I have no need of a gun.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:49.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.