board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Use of deadly force to protect property

Post Reply   Page 9 of 11  [ 218 posts ]
Jump to page « 17 8 9 10 11 »
Author Message
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 5:00 am
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
A woman was scalped in a mill not long ago, but the doctors reattached it. Maria, you should wear a cap or tie your hair up, it's horribly dangerous.

jadeval, a little 12 year old girl was killed here years ago, she had been taught to leave the tractor in gear, pulling along on the idle, while she opened the gates, and one day she slipped as she was climbing back up and that was that. It was a horrible Easter week here in our little community, a boy was killed 3 days before her, he had been riding his trail bike in the bush and was crossing the road to go home for lunch and didn't look to see if anyone was coming, and someone was.

I am not good with machinery at all, but I've had to operate it over the years. When I was really little my Dad farmed with horses, and that was nice. Although they can hurt you, too. Somehow, it's not as scary.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 7:14 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
jadeval wrote:
There are usually ways in which neighbors can prevent crime without resorting to direct, cop-like intervention.
C_G, this comment by jadeval closely echoes something that vison and I have also implied: that the action of calling 911 WAS an intervention on the neighbor's behalf, and an appropriate one at that.

Do you agree?


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 7:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
It was an intervention, yes. Not the only possible intervention by a long shot, although some insist that it is the only morally correct intervention.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 7:57 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I'm not sure that I agree it was the only morally correct intervention. It does, however, seem to me to be the most sensible one.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 8:22 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
I kind of like how this conversation sidetracked from "Use of Deadly force to protect property" to "Use of deadly force BY property"! :LMAO:

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 14 Dec , 2007 9:40 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
that's the conundrum... mechanizing property to protect or maintain property endangers the individual to a degree... but it's entertaining (not to mention instructive) to try and find the most gruesome way in which one can be disemboweled by farm equipment. :)

_________________

"Every determination is a negation." -Spinoza


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 11:42 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Gun crime; the English approach.
A news story from my home town about 3 miles from me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7358857.stm

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 12:48 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Another interesting article about a slightly different Brit perspective on guns in America

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 359513.stm

I don't approve of being able to carry concealed, or of being able to own a gun without a thorough background check, but.... Finally someone foreign to America who notices something good about it.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 3:03 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Very interesting article Estel.
Quote:
Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.
Translation:
translation wrote:
Even though those barbarians have guns, they have somehow managed to not murder each other all the time.
That nasty British gun fetish rears its ugly head one again.

As evidence that guns are so dreadful, they give someone who was shot in the city with the absolute strictest gun ban in the whole country. a city with a downright European attitude towards gun laws.

But they can't keep away the rest of the evidence either, no matter how hard they try.
Quote:
'Gentler environment'

Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?

A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."

This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.

Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

"It seems so nice here," they quaver.

Well, it is!
And that really does say it all.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 3:51 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
If Only We Were Armed Before
Vin Suprynowicz wrote:
One R. Lane wrote in on March 31:

"After reading his March 23 diatribe, it is clear to me that Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz has not yet learned the obvious: The more handguns a country has in circulation, the more handgun deaths that country is going to get – not less.

"The United States has some 200 million handguns in circulation, and the highest handgun death rate (per 100,000 population) of any industrialized nation, with the possible exception of Brazil. Japan has the fewest number of handguns in circulation and the lowest handgun death rate per 100,000.

"If all these guns make us safer, we should be the safest nation on earth."

Thus endeth R. Lane's succinct submission.

Wow. This really simplifies the question, doesn't it? All we have to do is look to see if we can find any historic examples where a government has banned access to handguns for a sizeable portion of the population, and see what that did to handgun death rates among that population.

And you know what? It turns out R. Lane is correct!

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German "Weimar" republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone but the military, the government police, and the ruling "Junker" class, members of whom were allowed to keep their fancy hunting rifles.

The ban was particularly effective among the ethnic minorities, such as the Jews.

Was this effective in keeping the Jews from killing each other with handguns? Yes!

Later, when millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated – despite the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not allowed to either eat or drink – did the Jews kill anyone with a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn't, because they had no handguns!

You see how well that works?

Now, some troublemakers may point out they pretty much all died early and violent deaths anyway, so the manner in which they died – the fact that they died of starvation, or by being gassed in the extermination chambers, or being shot with rifle bullets – isn't really as important as the fact that they might have defended themselves and avoided being loaded on the trains to the death camps if they'd had handguns.

But that's hardly the point at issue, is it? Besides, what are you saying: That they should have disobeyed the lawful orders of the duly constituted authorities?

The government took away their handguns, and – just as R. Lane predicted we'd find – their rate of handgun deaths dropped to almost nothing.

Or did it? At www.jpfo.org, Aaron Zelman, head of the civil rights organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, interviews Holocaust survivor Theodore Haas, who, as it turns out, managed to get himself shot with a handgun while at Dachau – more than once – despite the ban.

"Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments, punishment or torture?

"A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted while the brain was not in gear. The sorry results were two 9 mm bullets in my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able to dig the slugs out."

But this, as R. Lane would doubtless point out, is "the exception that proves the rule." In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 (a date which Janet Reno decided to commemorate 50 years later by gassing and incinerating a bunch of our own innocent women and babies in a church at Waco, Texas for daring to possess perfectly legal firearms).

Those Polish Jews used those handguns to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament, they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks, tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.

Surely we can all agree that was a bad thing. How much better it would have been had those desperate Jews not been able to get their hands on even a few handguns. Why, maybe then they would have marched peacefully onto the trains to the death camps, sparing everyone a whole lot of trouble.

We return to my friend Aaron Zelman's interview with concentration camp survivor Theodore Haas:

"Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, 'If only we were armed before, we would not be here now'?

"A.) Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. ...

"There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not 'brainwashed' about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis."

Thus ends the interview with Theodore Haas.

Other population groups who saw their rates of death by handgun bullets reduced after handgun bans included the prosperous Ukrainian farmers under Stalin in the 1930s, and just about everyone under Mao Tse-Tung in China after 1949, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia a few decades later. See these fine "progressive" leaders' proud death tolls at the "Gun Control Hall of Fame." But not from handguns!

So now we have some hard, historical examples of the kind of peaceful paradise that victim disarmament statists like R. Lane have in mind for us.

Personally, I don't think aiming to be the "safest" nation on Earth is shooting very high. I'd much prefer to live in "the freest and safest" nation on earth. And this was indeed the freest and safest nation on earth, R. Lane (possibly tied with equally well-armed Switzerland) – from 1782 to about 1912, back when we were also the best-armed nation on earth.

(De Tocqueville was astonished to find a single woman could travel the length of the Mississippi unmolested in the 1830s; few Americans even locked their doors.)

Since then, crime has indeed crept upward, along with a lot of other infringements on our freedoms, our happiness and our prosperity.

What has changed since 1913 that might help us explain that? Can any of you "progressives" out there help me, here?

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 5:14 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Like I said, I don't approve of being able to carry concealed, or of being able to own a gun without a thorough background check, but I do believe in highly regulated gun ownership.

With the above post from Meril, however, I have to call Godwin's Law into play. I mean, seriously - using examples from WWII Germany to say that gun ownership is ok in an America that doesn't have war on its soil? I might be a lefty, but that just goes into realms of propoganda, and nothing is going to make it come out.

:peek: Sorry Meril.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 8:34 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Germany didn't have a war on its soil at the time either. Inasmuch as personal firearms are needed to stave off totalitarian coups (their value toward that end is another subject), they need to be in the people's hands before the trouble starts if they're to do any good.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 9:43 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
I do believe that April 19, 1943 was during the war.

I understand the point the article is attempting to make, however... there are plenty of countries that have handgun bans that have not had their governments turned into facist/totalitarian/communist etc etc governments and there are countries that managed to end facist governments without handguns being in the population. Perhaps a+b could have equaled c if a=jews, b=legally owning handguns and c=not ending up in concentration camps, but that doesn't mean that if you live in a country where handguns aren't legal that a minority in that country will end up in a concentration camp or the equivelent.

The logic for the argument in that article doesn't work, even if it does pull at the emotional heartstrings of those who read it. That's one of the reasons why it is propoganda as opposed to logical reasoning.

For something as dangerous as making handguns legal or for keeping handguns legal, I don't give a rats ass what the propoganda says or how much of it there is. I want to hear the logical reasonings. I want a clear list of the positive and negatives. Anyone who blindly says that it's better and refuses to admit that there are negatives that have to be taken into consideration is someone who I won't listen to when it comes to arguments/debates about the subject because they're following their beliefs as blindly as a religion. To me, there is no difference between someone who believes in outlawing handguns because of a belief system, or keeping handguns legal because of a belief system than someone who wants to make their religion law in a country. If you're not willing to admit the negatives and be willing to admit that there do need to be strict regulations to handle those negatives, then you're believing in a fairytale and trying to force it on those around you.

Saying that handguns should be legal because Jews didn't have them in WWII is like saying Wicca should be made the only legal religion in a country because it is one religion that never caused harm, crusades, jihads, etc etc. Handguns can be legal in the U.S. in a strictly controlled environment, but allowing them to just be generally legal for ownership because "someday the government might turn against us" and because "We have the right to bear arms" is complete crap. The full statement is, we 2have the right to bear arms in a state militia". Anything beyong that is a privilege, not a right, no matter what anyone says, and that privilege should not be given to just anyone.

I would venture to say that, outside of a state militia, that privilege should only be given to those who have gone through a extensive training regime prior to be allowed to own the gun, a thorough background check done before ownership of the gun is given to make sure the person has no violent criminal record harrassment record, sexual abuse record, or a history of violent mental illness, etc - you get the gist; and that there is a minimum of a 3 month parole period after they own the gun to make sure they use it safely. That's just the owners. Add on to that, there should be certain standards that the owner must maintain when it comes to storage of the weapon and care of the weapon, and the standards of storage should vary depending on whether or not there are children residing in the same dwelling place as the weapon. And it should not be legal for a random citizen to be able to generally walk around and carry concealed. Have it obviously locked in a holster on your hip by all means, but don't hide it.

If anyone thinks those standards are too strict, then you can go ahead and live in my former neighborhood where, when a bunch of kids were playing around with water pistols, one kid pulled out a loaded real gun and started waving it around. Don't talk to me about everyone having the right to bear arms if it means that I can't sit on my front porch and feel safe cause I don't know who the next dimwit is going to be who just might accidently shoot me.

Add on to that, in a country like America where handguns are legal and fairly common, I actually think that classes on basic gun safety should be offered in school. That way, if a kid ever comes across a gun without parental supervision, they, at least, won't be stupid. Whether or not that class on gun safety includes a day or two at a gun range would be up to the parent. Same sort of permission slip thing we had to get when I was learning sex ed in 5th and 6th grade.


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 10:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
Estel wrote:
there are countries that managed to end fascist governments without handguns being in the population.
Examples?

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 11:02 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Well, it wasn't fascism (though, honestly, go far enough left or far enough right and you end up in the exact same place), but the collapse of communism in Europe happened without handguns...

Revolutions do happen without violence y'know. Just sayin'.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 22 Apr , 2008 11:06 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Meril36 wrote:
Estel wrote:
there are countries that managed to end fascist governments without handguns being in the population.
Examples?
Oh for goodness sake - try to make a big post to have a decent debate.... I remember why I don't post in this forum much :neutral: It's simply not worth the effort.

And one example would be Spain.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 9:02 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
and Portugal. And Argentina. And Chile. And Greece.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 4:47 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
It is true, Estel, that not every country with comprehensive firearms restrictions has become a totalitarian country. On the other hand it is true that every country without those restrictions has not become a totalitarian country. The only solid correlation is that countries with a more enlightened attitude towards self defense do not become totalitarian. The rest, those with heavy restrictions, some of them descend into having too much government in all areas.

That is why the logic for the article works. You are trying to skew the statistics, but the counter statistic cannot be skewed. That is the logical reasoning you claim to want, yet you dismiss as propaganda when it is offered. Do you only want the logical reasons for bans and not for liberty?

Yet after insisting that you want logical reasoning you offer us a false analogy about Wicca.

We have a right to bear arms. One of the reasons we have a right to bear arms is because of the state militias (few of which exist anymore and the National Guard isn't an example of). Yet the militias you are willing to allow the guns to were inserted into the 2nd Amendment for precisely the reason you say is complete crap. So basically you are saying the reason the only people you will grant guns to are allowed it for no reason at all. And that assumes that people in the late 18th century used the early 21st century definition of militia, which they didn't.

I enjoyed your list of restrictions. You want to make sure that those who you will deign to grant the privilege of gun ownership are not able to actually use the guns you are so generous in allowing them to own. On the other hand, a sensible attitue towards gun ownership that includes training is acceptable.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 4:58 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Estel wrote:
I do believe that April 19, 1943 was during the war.
The Warsaw ghetto date? Yes, by that point it was far too late. The author's point as I read it was that if the Jews (among others) had been armed from the start, maybe Hitler's coup and mad rush to war and genocide wouldn't have been successful. Or at the very least, maybe more of them could have bought the time they needed to get out.

And I really take exception to the idea that gun ownership (or any other type of ownership) is a "privilege" the government awards us if we're good. The people give privileges to the government; not the other way around.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 5:02 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
The only solid correlation is that countries with a more enlightened attitude towards self defense do not become totalitarian
Er, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Colombia, Civil War Spain, Iran, Guatamala, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sierra Leone...........

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 9 of 11  [ 218 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 17 8 9 10 11 »
Jump to: