Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[MrJonno]

Well, there's a lot more crimes than just murders. And there's a lot more uses for guns than just defense.

Well there is attempted murder with long term injury, rape , and crippling assaults none of which are particular high in the UK, anything else a person can recover from. Whether someone 'defends' their wallet with an Uzi doesnt rate very highly on whether people should have them or not

[JimC]

Collector1337 wrote:

...And there's a lot more uses for guns than just defense.

And most people here would agree with you. Even BG, who goes a little further than me, recognises that hunting and competitive target shooting, as well as military and law enforcement use are clearly valid. You aren't arguing against total gun haters at all, just people who argue that the restrictive gun laws that operate in most western countries (particularly those concerning hand-guns) are a saner and safer way to go than the US model...

[MrJonno]

I have zero problems with firearms being used for sport as long as they are tightly regulated, people who have them realise its privilege not a right and that this will revoked the second they think otherwise or want one for 'self defence'

The British NRA supports guns use in sports , its specifically does not support them for 'defence'

The shitty little campaign group which probably has less members than this forum
http://www.armbritain.com/ wants to change this and tried petitioning support at a British NRA gun show (yes we have them in the UK). They got quite upset when they were told where to go

[Blind groper]

Even BG, who goes a little further than me, recognises that hunting and competitive target shooting, as well as military and law enforcement use are clearly valid.

I do not think my views are at all excessive. I note that, in the USA, 8, 000 people per year are murdered with hand guns, and another 12, 000 per year kill themselves with those same hand guns, and I suggest getting rid of civilian owned hand guns would be a good thing. Other firearms are used in far fewer murders and suicides, and so I am not fussed about them.

This is, I think, a very balanced and rational approach.

Even hand guns can remain under restricted conditions without causing the current level of harm. Just limit them to registered pistol clubs, where they are owned by the club, kept in secure safes, used for target shooting, and not permitted off the premises.

[Collector1337]

Even hand guns can remain under restricted conditions without causing the current level of harm. Just limit them to registered pistol clubs, where they are owned by the club, kept in secure safes, used for target shooting, and not permitted off the premises.

Not legal in my country so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[orpheus]

Even hand guns can remain under restricted conditions without causing the current level of harm. Just limit them to registered pistol clubs, where they are owned by the club, kept in secure safes, used for target shooting, and not permitted off the premises.

Not legal in my country so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Sigh.

We're talking about what should be done, Collector. Arguing what would be a better state of affairs. It's notable that gun folks will happily do this until they are stymied by a point they cannot rebut - at which point they will do this anatomically remarkable trick of pointing to the 2nd Amendment whilst simultaneously sticking their fingers in their ears.

[Collector1337]

Even hand guns can remain under restricted conditions without causing the current level of harm. Just limit them to registered pistol clubs, where they are owned by the club, kept in secure safes, used for target shooting, and not permitted off the premises.

Not legal in my country so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Sigh.

We're talking about what should be done, Collector. Arguing what would be a better state of affairs. It's notable that gun folks will happily do this until they are stymied by a point they cannot rebut - at which point they will do this anatomically remarkable trick of pointing to the 2nd Amendment whilst simultaneously sticking their fingers in their ears.

No. Definitely should NOT be done. What would be a better state of affairs, is conceal carry, stand your ground, and castle doctrine in every state.

[Jason]

And duels held at high-noon to settle disputes.

[Seth]

they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

This is so like the arrogant belief of others who have since fallen to crushing defeat. Like the believers in the Third Reich. Like the old time Romans. Pride comes before......

No Seth.
The distinguishing characteristics of gun nutters are stupidity, wilful blindness, and callous arrogance, and most definitely not any form of intelligence.

We disagree. The intelligent ones are those of us who are determined to survive an attack, thus leaving us alive to pass on our genes to the next generation. The stupid are the genetic dead-ends who deny the reality that life isn't safe and who knowingly choose not to prepare for survival regardless of the threat. That's pure, undiluted evolutionary fact.

Incidentally, you continue to use the term "hoplophobe" incorrectly. It refers to a psychological condition which will not permit a person to even touch a firearm. I, and others who argue for sane gun control, can and have handled firearms. I have hunted rabbits with my father's old 0.22 rifle, fired a 0.303 rifle at targets, used a shotgun to hunt ducks, and even handled a loaded hand gun. A hoplophobe cannot do those things.

A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments.

Wrong again, Sparky.

Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them."[1] It is sometimes used more generally to describe the "fear of weapons"[2][3] or the "highly salient danger of these weapons" [4] or the "fear of armed citizens."[5]

Creation

Firearms authority and writer Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962 to describe what he called a "mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons."[6] The term was constructed from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning amongst others "arms,"[7] and φόβος - phobos, meaning "fear."[8] Although not a mental health professional, Cooper employed the term as an alternative to other slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. Cooper's opinion was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."[6] Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros asserted that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[9]
Source: Wikipedia

The word "hoplophobe" describes you perfectly.

[Seth]

The number of uses of firearms by civilians in 'defensive' use in the UK is or is very close to ZERO in any given year and I don't see 1000's of murders here which you would expect if rates were per capita the same as the US

Well, that's because it's functionally ILLEGAL to use a firearm in self-defense in the UK. In fact it's functionally illegal to use ANY weapon whatsoever for self-defense, and it's actually illegal to even possess an object with the intent of using it in self-defense, even non-lethal forms such as tear gas and OC spray.

It's no wonder Brits are victimized as such a high rate by criminals. The criminals know full well their victims have been well trained and cowed into being submissive, docile and non-confrontational when attacked.

And you make the same mistake of reasoning that BG makes in falsely assuming that every DGU, or even every instance of self-defense using other methods is thwarting a "murder" and that because there are fewer murders this is somehow causally connected to armed self-defense.

This is just stupidity on the part of both of you.

Most instances of self-defense, armed or otherwise, do not thwart a "murder." They usually thwart a lesser type of violent crime like assault, rape, robbery, burglary, etc..

It just happens that a handgun is an excellent (the most excellent and effective in fact) tool for thwarting all sorts of crime, even when it's not discharged. And that's exactly the point. By carrying a handgun I can apply any degree of force, from a mere threat (which is no physical force at all) to lethal force, at my option, as needed, in the instant that the particular level of force is called for, with a high degree of effectiveness. No need to wait for "the professionals" to show up five minutes AFTER my wallet has been stolen and I've been beaten up, I can put a stop to the crime before it is consummated in most cases simply by presenting my firearm and telling the thug to fuck off. If the thug doesn't pay attention, then I can deploy lethal force if and when it's legally authorized and still thwart the crime.

Murder is hardly the only threat for which a concealed handgun is a useful and effective tool of self-defense.

[Seth]

The number of uses of firearms by civilians in 'defensive' use in the UK is or is very close to ZERO in any given year and I don't see 1000's of murders here which you would expect if rates were per capita the same as the US

That indeed is the critical point. Collector and Seth castigate people in countries with gun laws for failing to defend themselves, with the inference being spineless capitulation to the ever-present danger of attack by others (paranoia, anyone?).

Not defending ourselves in your gun-totin' fashion seems to result in vastly fewer murders...

...and vastly higher violent criminal victimization.

I have as much right to defend myself against a mugger trying to steal my wallet by threatening me with a knife as I do to shoot someone who is actively trying to murder me with a firearm. And I have a right to have the most effective tools I can find to accomplish that crime suppression, which happens at the moment to be the concealed handgun.

[Seth]

Well, there's a lot more crimes than just murders. And there's a lot more uses for guns than just defense.

Well there is attempted murder with long term injury, rape , and crippling assaults none of which are particular high in the UK, anything else a person can recover from. Whether someone 'defends' their wallet with an Uzi doesnt rate very highly on whether people should have them or not

Not to you, but then you're crazy.

To the person who is being mugged at knifepoint it means absolutely everything. You see, it's not the wallet that's important, it's the threat of physical harm by the criminal that justifies the use of deadly force in self defense. But in cases where a mortal threat has not arisen, then in most cases it's not lawful to use lethal force in self defense...except in carefully defined circumstances.

In Colorado, here are the crimes which justify the use of deadly physical force WITHOUT an attending reasonable belief of mortal danger:

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person



(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

[Blind groper]

The same logic applies to rapes etc as for murder. If there are 80, 000 DGU's by gun owners against rapists etc, then there will be an excess 160, 000 rapes and assaults against non gun owners. No such trend shows in the stats.

Much more reasonable to recognise the simple fact that the normal level of delusion (10%) in any population means a whole bunch of gun owners reporting DGU's that never happened.

[Seth]

Even BG, who goes a little further than me, recognises that hunting and competitive target shooting, as well as military and law enforcement use are clearly valid.

I do not think my views are at all excessive. I note that, in the USA, 8, 000 people per year are murdered with hand guns, and another 12, 000 per year kill themselves with those same hand guns, and I suggest getting rid of civilian owned hand guns would be a good thing. Other firearms are used in far fewer murders and suicides, and so I am not fussed about them.

And between 80,000 and 2.5 million people per year use firearms, mostly handguns, to prevent violent crimes. That far outweighs the relatively small number of murders and suicides. By a ratio of between 10 to 1 and 312 to one.

Using your theory, between 10 and 312 times more people will be victimized by violent criminals every year, and an unknown number of them will be murdered by their assailant because they did not have a handgun with which to protect themselves...like every teacher, administrator and child at Sandy Hook Elementary, and Columbine High School, etc., ad nauseum.

Your idea makes no sense at all I'm afraid, even if we accept your bullshit statistoids.

[Seth]

The same logic applies to rapes etc as for murder. If there are 80, 000 DGU's by gun owners against rapists etc, then there will be an excess 160, 000 rapes and assaults against non gun owners. No such trend shows in the stats.

Much more reasonable to recognise the simple fact that the normal level of delusion (10%) in any population means a whole bunch of gun owners reporting DGU's that never happened.

Same reasoning fallacy as before. Try again, Sparky. Take a class in statistical analysis first, okay? Then one in logic and reasoning.