The problem with that attitude is when those “tragic mistakes” happen, it usually isn’t the person who made the mistake who’s lying bleeding or dead on the ground…
I don’t think anyone questions the legal right to self-defense; though of course we’ll argue about how far and under what circumstances one should be allowed to go. The question is whether certain people have a tendency to, well, jump the gun, if you’ll pardon the morbidly obvious pun, when it comes to using lethal force; and whether there are cultural, social, etc. reasons for that (you seem to suggest there are). It’s easy to look at cases like the man with Alzheimer’s a few posts ago and say, “Well, that guy sure overreacted.” What I wonder is if this is just a tragic yet isolated incident or indicative of a wider problem; and would the same thing have happened in, say, Maine or Oregon or some other state with, shall we say, less of a propensity for that sort of thing.
As has been said repeatedly in this thread, though, gun violence is so heavily polarized and politicized in this country it’s almost impossible to get good solid objective data to crunch.
I suppose you could say that different communities with different values produce different outlooks. It’s not so much that somone in the south is honored for the killing itself. The killing is the result the action was defending your home or loved ones. Its the idea of rugged independence and self reliance. I think this attituded is more attributed to those in less densly populated areas. Look to people in Wyoming or Montana, clearly northerners, but they understand that polices reaction times are in the minutes and if your life is in jeopardy you only have seconds to act.
It also seems to me that people in more densly populated cities would be “conditioned” to trust the ever present authorities. Call the police for help, don’t fight back just give the man your wallet or car. Do what they say and comply. The police don’t want the streets turning into the old west so that’s the best advice they can offer. Also, if the authorities said to fight back and you did, would that then make them responsible should something happen.
I know a case locally where a woman was shot in the back of her head as she lay on the street becasue she complied to a man that wanted her car. She gave it to him. She did as she had always been told, she complied, she didn’t resist. Then she was shot. Had she resisted the result may not have changed.
But does a willingness to stand your ground, to defend yourself or your loved ones constitute a love of violence for its own sake? Can a person be a pacifist and abhor violence but still rise up to defend himself when threatened?
ShivaX
3049
How many NBC weapons are owned by private individuals?
When was the last time a school shooting involved a nuclear weapon?
In many cases, you’d be wrong on this point. There is a sizable part of the population that believes you call the police and anything else should be illegal. I know quite a few of them. The irony of when they post stuff on Facebook about police corruption or brutality tends to be lost on them, however.
The demise of this attitude in the north probably has quite a bit to do with later immigration patterns and industrialization. The mountain west is also sparsely populated and the law is a remote force at best - that helps explain the continuing relevance of individualism there.
As a southerner I should also explain, when I say the North I mean the states north of the Mason-Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi.
It also seems to me that people in more densly populated cities would be “conditioned” to trust the ever present authorities. Call the police for help, don’t fight back just give the man your wallet or car. Do what they say and comply. The police don’t want the streets turning into the old west so that’s the best advice they can offer. Also, if the authorities said to fight back and you did, would that then make them responsible should something happen.
Agreed, and I think that’s what happened.
But does a willingness to stand your ground, to defend yourself or your loved ones constitute a love of violence for its own sake?
That’s an important distinction, it’s not that we venerate violence (outside of football I suppose) but that we consider it an important tool. It’s a way to defend other higher principles.
Can a person be a pacifist and abhor violence but still rise up to defend himself when threatened?
Have you read Bonhoffer? He was a German, a Lutheran Priest, and a pacifist. He was killed for conspiring against Hitler. By and large I would say no, pacifism is an absolute doctrine.
How is that relevant? They’re advances in weaponry, still.
ShivaX
3052
Because we were specifically talking about the future of weaponry in the hands of the citizenry?
We started with “omg in the future you’ll kill a whole city with crazy weapons! wtf!”
To which I responded, “Actually weapons haven’t changed much in the last 150 years as far as the average person goes.”
And then you say, “ZOMG nukes and VX gas!”
Which only proves my point. Nukes are coming up on 100 years old and no one has used them on a school or post office or to defend their house from a burglar.
Meanwhile pump shotguns are fairly commonly used in home defense situations and they haven’t changed in 150 years.
Keep making up what I said, as usual, to justify your fence-post moving. You were imprecise as usual, but hey!
…ZOMG NUKES, KALI!
(Also lol…no, no changes in handle material, etc.)
RichVR
3054
Let me translate Starlight to human for you folks: I saw what seemed to be a reasonable discussion here. Now I can’t allow that to continue. So I’ll at first throw in a few comments for the people that don’t really know me. A bit of fishing if you will. They will in turn try to comment reasonably back to me. I will sink the hook. Meanwhile the rest of them will ignore me, at first. Eventually I’ll do my batshit insane thing. Then I’ll drop my pants and run away.
But I’ll be back!
I don’t know a single human who beleives this.
A brilliant summary of why I have him on ignore. Of course, I still see those portions of his posts others choose to quote, so it’s not a perfect solution.
ShivaX
3057
I know about 5.
Just hang out with a few more liberal people (or interact with them on social media) and it isn’t a very uncommon belief, really. The number that thinks anything beyond calling the cops is too much isn’t huge by any means, but the number that think you should flee your own home or just give an intruder/thief anything they want short of being raped/murdered is pretty high. If you aren’t locked in you closet waiting for the police to arrive you’re not doing enough is the common mentality. Avoid confrontation at all costs and only if you can’t should you be able to do anything (preferably pepper spray/stungun and then flee).
I’ve seen a lot of the other side of the coin, which is how these discussions tend to happen. People who basically think, “If someone is on my property I’ll kill em!” with no distinction for much of anything. Those ones honestly bother me more. The super liberal scenario at least comes from a good (albeit naive) place, whereas the “Shoot first” crowd comes from a dark place of psychotic paranoia.
Just hang out with a few more liberal people (or interact with them on social media) and it isn’t a very uncommon belief, really.
A number of my New England friends hold that view. Men and women alike.
I’m often on the same side of political fence as Dawn Falcon / Starlight, and I have him on ignore for the same reason. On the positive side, the quoted stuff isn’t all that irritating, it’s just crazy. Such as his private definition of “capitalism” that doesn’t map to any known usage.
Listen fella… I am a liberal, I live in a liberal place with a strong streak of socialism. I have friends who range from quite conservative (right wing religious) all the way over to borderline communists. I have never heard any of them ever deny the right to self defence or suggest it should be illegal to defend yourself with whatever means necessary. I have a very very catholic friend who is very conservative, and out of everyone he is the least likely to actually defend himself.
So the people you know on facebook are just lunatic fringers as far as I am concerned. No one seriously suggests that people not have the right to self defence, and certainly no one has even attempted to advance legislation to that effect, here or anywhere in north america. A bold statement I know but I feel confident making it having done absolutely zero research on the matter.
If you want to take the opinions of crazy people and say that that represents a meaningful segment of the population, I am going to call that out as bullshit.
Sorry I simply do not beleive that a number of your friends hold that people should not have the right of self defence. Maybe you are mistaking them saying you should not be able to shoot an unarmed human in the face on your doorstep as them holding that view.
Possibly they might even hold you should not shoot a fleeing burgler in the back, and you are extrapolating that to them being anti-self-defence.
I’m not TOO far from this myself – I live in a suburban area where the police response to a call about an intruder in your home is almost certainly less than five minutes. I might hole my family up in a single room and threaten to shoot the intruder if they made their way upstairs (regardless of whether I owned a gun), but I wouldn’t go hunting the guy through my downstairs trying to plug him. What’s the worst that he’s going to make off with in five minutes? A TV? A console? All that stuff is insured.
I could see where my attitude would change if I were twenty minutes away from a police response. And maybe if I owned something that had both high monetary value AND sentimental value (a valuable antique from an ancestor) I’d be willing to risk my life and fight for it.
Of course the real threat of harm to a family member shoves it into the realm of self-defense.
Let me translate RichVE to human for you folks;
Anyway!
Kali; I agree on the motives. If you’d stop making other silly claims like some weapons not getting more lethal…
If you leave any macho bullshit behind, the decision to actively confront an intruder with a weapon is a question of whether the possible financial loss is worth being injured or killed. Guns aren’t force fields, and there’s a good chance an armed intruder will see you first. If they aren’t armed, there’s a chance they’ll surprise you, disarm you, and kill you with your own weapon. If you don’t take those possibilities seriously, testosterone poisoning has deranged you.
For me, there’s simply nothing in the house they could take that would be worth it. I’m insured, and even if I wasn’t, replacing all my material possessions would not be a grave financial hardship. My bank account won’t help me if I’m dead.
If someone were out to do me physical harm rather than just rob me, running is still my first option, because it’s less risky. If that’s not an option, I’d get my .45 and shoot them, and shoot to kill. It’s about risk again - warning or threatening someone with a weapon makes it too likely I’ll be injured or killed.
It’s all bullshit anyway, since in the real world, these are not decisions I will ever need to make. The risk of robbery or murder here is very low. Not zero, of course, but I’m far more likely to be injured in a car accident than in a home invasion.
PS4 deal gone bad.
Anyway, I have had to confront an intruder. In the restricted sight lines of a house, a thin metal pole served me fine.
AlanQ
3066
That doesn’t seem inconsistent with a belief in self-defence though. For example, one common way of looking at self-defence is that self-defence is justified when the use of force is (1) reasonably necessary and (2) proportionate to the harm being averted. If a thief is in your home but you have an easy means of escape, then the use of force would not be reasonably necessary and ergo there would be no right to self-defence. Some jurisdictions abolish one or both criteria when it comes to a person’s home (ie. the “Castle doctrine”), but lots of jurisdictions do not.
