ydoaPs Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Most of you know that Texas has a group of people running around in public with assault rifles. Texas also has a Stand Your Ground law. Now, what happens when a responsible gun owner reasonably confuses a nutjob with an assault rifle with a nutjob with an assault rifle and stands his or her ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Aside from the obvious issue, in how to do you distinguish between the crazed mass murderer who entered the public place with an assault weapon intent on killing you, from the upstanding patriot who just entered a public area with an assault weapon to protect you, I've always found the false dichotomy between "good people with guns" and "bad people with guns" hard to swallow. I mean how many people who have committed murder are an otherwise reasonable person placed in extraordinary circumstances? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Most of you know that Texas has a group of people running around in public with assault rifles. Texas also has a Stand Your Ground law. Now, what happens when a responsible gun owner reasonably confuses a nutjob with an assault rifle with a nutjob with an assault rifle and stands his or her ground? Define "responsible gun owner" and "nut job with an assault rifle" in objective terms. Aside from the obvious issue, in how to do you distinguish between the crazed mass murderer who entered the public place with an assault weapon intent on killing you, from the upstanding patriot who just entered a public area with an assault weapon to protect you, I've always found the false dichotomy between "good people with guns" and "bad people with guns" hard to swallow. I mean how many people who have committed murder are an otherwise reasonable person placed in extraordinary circumstances? I'm not sure you could call someone who commits murder reasonable. Reasonable people do not kill other people unjustifiably, and in violation of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Reasonable people do not kill other people unjustifiably, and in violation of the law. I think the issue here is that it's now possible to kill someone unjustifiably, but not in violation of the law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I'm not sure you could call someone who commits murder reasonable. Reasonable people do not kill other people unjustifiably, and in violation of the law. .... otherwise reasonable 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Arete, your clarification not withstanding, I stand by my statement. Unless you have a specific example you'd like to provide, I'm still not sure you can call a murderer a reasonable person. Edit: Learning to spell is hard. Edited June 12, 2014 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 OK, I know a bloke who is a murderer, and I think he's a reasonable person. He argued with a friend and it developed into a scuffle. That's not great behaviour, but I don't think it's "unreasonable"- I suspect many or most of us have done that. He shoved the other person away. They fell and hit their head. They died as a result of that injury. legally, that's death due to assault and battery. It's not self defence, so it's murder. You might argue that, perhaps he should have been tried for manslaughter instead of murder- but that's not what the court thought. I suspect that many "otherwise reasonable" people have killed in the heat of the moment. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "reasonable" which you choose to use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 OK, I know a bloke who is a murderer, and I think he's a reasonable person. He argued with a friend and it developed into a scuffle. That's not great behaviour, but I don't think it's "unreasonable"- I suspect many or most of us have done that. He shoved the other person away. They fell and hit their head. They died as a result of that injury. legally, that's death due to assault and battery. It's not self defence, so it's murder. You might argue that, perhaps he should have been tried for manslaughter instead of murder- but that's not what the court thought. I suspect that many "otherwise reasonable" people have killed in the heat of the moment. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "reasonable" which you choose to use. Ok, I see your point, and I find myself having to revise my previous position. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 what happens when a responsible gun owner reasonably confuses a nutjob with an assault rifle with a nutjob with an assault rifle and stands his or her ground?More information needed. Were any of the individuals involved nonwhite? Clearly, that will change where blame is placed in public perception and guilt applied (at least on Fox News). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Most of you know that Texas has a group of people running around in public with assault rifles. Texas also has a Stand Your Ground law. Now, what happens when a responsible gun owner reasonably confuses a nutjob with an assault rifle with a nutjob with an assault rifle and stands his or her ground? Does Stand Your Ground have a don't-be-the-guy-who-shoots-first component? Hopefully "responsible" means both parties can figure out that neither really wants to start the bloodshed. "Drop your gun!" "No, YOU drop YOUR gun!" What about us unarmed People, though? I'm walking along, minding my own business, when I turn a corner and see two guys with assault rifles coming my way. If I continue or do nothing, I might be tonight's top news story. If I panic, or even if I'm just trying to get away from them and I'm injured somehow (diving into an alley, being startled into the path of a car or cyclist, etc), is that on me or are these guys technically assaulting us with the threat of another killing spree? Cops who see these guys have to investigate (just a guess, don't know this for a fact), people driving take their attention off the road, the whole thing creates an atmosphere of armed tension. I shouldn't have to defend overreacting to civilians with assault rifles in public. I should get to assume they need to be reported and stayed away from. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Aside from the obvious issue, in how to do you distinguish between the crazed mass murderer who entered the public place with an assault weapon intent on killing you, from the upstanding patriot who just entered a public area with an assault weapon to protect you How to Tell the Difference Between an Open-Carry Patriot and a Deranged Killer http://boingboing.net/2014/06/11/tom-the-dancing-bug-how-to-te.html 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Fanaticism: Redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim. ~ George Santayana source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Good point Phi for All. Self defense is already the law of the land. No court is sending someone to prison for defending themselves or others from great bodily harm. It seems like stand your ground laws exist to minimize any responsibility an armed person may have to de-escalate a situation. As a result we are seeing ambiguous cases play out where unarmed people are being shot and killed by armed people who claim they felt threatened. Feeling threatened and actually being in great bodily harm are often two very different things. Every individual has their own threshold for what makes them feel threatened. In my opinion armed individuals should have an obligation not to confront, harass, or otherwise interfere with people unless that person(s) is directly engaged in an assualt. We have trained police officers for a reason. Edited June 13, 2014 by Ten oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Evidently the only thing that can stop a good man with a gun is another good man with a gun... http://aattp.org/two-proud-gun-nuts-second-amendment-death-road-rage-incident/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) How to Tell the Difference Between an Open-Carry Patriot and a Deranged Killer http://boingboing.net/2014/06/11/tom-the-dancing-bug-how-to-te.html I just wore earmuffs for study and people were worried, so I gave them up. There were other factors: the giant backpack (cyclist commuter who enjoys his studies), out-of-place grinning (active imagination)... the coincidental username... Had this place been open-carry, someone might have shot me. Hopefully the 'good guy' would've had the sense to take a leg shot just in case. Edited June 13, 2014 by MonDie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Personally I'm leaning towards getting something nonlethal or not technically a weapon. One man stood his ground quite effectively armed only with an icepick... in Florida... While one must wonder why he had an ice pick, he did save a significant amount of money and didn't have to deal with licensing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 We'll probably see the other side of the coin soon if we haven't already. That's where a bunch of assault-rifle-toting good guys walk past a bunch of assault-rifle-toting bad guys, nod to them and assume they're just making a second-amendment statement. Later, after the school/office/home gets shot up by the second group, people will ask why the good guys didn't recognize the bad guys and stop them. And it's because they're just tools that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user. Tools that are as inappropriate to have out in an urban setting as taking your power drill into a business meeting, or your tree branch pruning pole into a restaurant. In the city, at least, the only people who should have openly carried weapons should be in an identifiable uniform like police and security services wear. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 "And it's because they're just tools that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user." With the best will in the world, it's hard to see a gun as designed to do anything good. The guns under discussion are built to kill people. What's the logical difference between "I should be allowed to carry a gun" and "I should be allowed to carry a bomb"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 With the best will in the world, it's hard to see a gun as designed to do anything good. I see your point regarding assault weapons, however as a general statement about guns, I disagree. I grew up in a semi rural region of a country which doesn't have a constitutionally defined right to bear arms. I was always taught that the gun was a tool like for e.g. a chainsaw - useful in the right circumstances, and incredibly dangerous if mistreated. Both should be stored correctly - i.e. unloaded and away from the ammunition, or in the "off" position away from the fuel can in the case of chainsaw; and used correctly - i.e. correct protective wear, clear are free of obstruction, by person with the proper instruction who isn't under the influence of anything. Given where I came from in regards to guns, having a loaded shotgun by the bed in case someone breaks in seems about on par with keeping an idling chainsaw next to the bed in case a tree falls on the house, and walking around in public with a loaded assault rifle in case you encounter a crazy person seems about as intelligent as carrying around an idling logger's saw just in case a power pole falls down and you need to saw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 With the best will in the world, it's hard to see a gun as designed to do anything good. The guns under discussion are built to kill people. My point is that the people carrying guns as a 2nd Amendment statement are carrying them as tools to do work (security work, in this case), while the rest of us don't see them as appropriate tools to carry openly in public. Especially in the cities where our taxes pay for uniformed protection from criminals. Given where I came from in regards to guns, having a loaded shotgun by the bed in case someone breaks in seems about on par with keeping an idling chainsaw next to the bed in case a tree falls on the house, and walking around in public with a loaded assault rifle in case you encounter a crazy person seems about as intelligent as carrying around an idling logger's saw just in case a power pole falls down and you need to saw it up. I could argue about the loaded shotgun by the bed if it was just me and I could minimize any risk to myself for having it there. It's like the bandaids I keep in my wallet; damn nice to have when needed and costs me nothing to keep them there. But guns for home defense are a double-edged sword; you risk shooting through walls into loved ones (that's why I'd rather have a real double-edged sword instead of a gun). But you're right, having the gun with you all the time doesn't seem intelligent. The odds that you'll really need it are dwarfed by the odds that you won't, or you'll think you need it but are wrong. I've never been in a situation where being able to shoot somebody would have been a good thing. I have been in several situations where I would likely have pulled it out if I had a gun, and regretted it later. Sometimes having the gun as an option means you don't spend much time thinking of options. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes ...Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. ... Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. ... Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) [snip] And it's because they're just tools that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user. Tools that are as inappropriate to have out in an urban setting as taking your power drill into a business meeting, or your tree branch pruning pole into a restaurant. In the city, at least, the only people who should have openly carried weapons should be in an identifiable uniform like police and security services wear. Anyone who's compelled to be armed 24/7 is probably paranoid and prone to over-react, shooting an innocent who happens to fit their personal schema of "deranged lunatic". Our stereotypes produce false-positives and false-negatives in judging whether someone is holding a weapon. Considering the low base rate combined with the availability heuristic, I would expect far more false-positives than false-negatives. Edited June 13, 2014 by MonDie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Seriously though, if you're including the military in those figures, why do they have to stop at handguns, shotguns and assault rifles if they're outnumbered so badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Seriously though, if you're including the military in those figures, why do they have to stop at handguns, shotguns and assault rifles if they're outnumbered so badly? Pardon; are you asking me about the figures I quoted in post #21? I don't understand the question in any regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Pardon; are you asking me about the figures I quoted in post #21? I don't understand the question in any regard. I've always been skeptical that a population armed as we are would stand much chance against a concerted US military effort. IF the military could be convinced to attack a superior force of armed civilians, wouldn't they go after them with more than assault rifles and handguns? I guess I'm saying it's not accurate to assume civilian firepower is better based on common weapons, but I'm also saying that owning guns to keep the government honest these days is a less powerful argument than it's ever been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now