arma virumque cano (et alia)
I'm curious: where is this right and responsibility to defend oneself exist?In law, self-defence is a mitigating defence to a crime. At least it should be.Current US law in some states allow for people to murder others if they claim they were scared, but this is not how true self-defence works (or at least has worked) in the law.People who use force which exceeds that reasonably necessary (not in the opinion of the defendant) have become the aggressor.
So you are arguing that a woman has no right to stop a rapist, unless he expresses the intention of killing her?
That would be part of your right to life.
Laci, to what you're referring is called escalation of force. And you're right - it's not necessarily appropriate to pull a gun if it's clear that your life is not in danger. But you're very, very incorrect about it being legal to shoot someone if you're scared. The key is were you in fear for your life? And, while no one can be in the head of another, the job of a jury is to determine if any reasonable person would be in fear for their life under the same circumstances. Also, age and physical condition and yes, even gender, will be factors to consider as well. I find it absurd that you question the existence of a right to defend oneself. Under what rock do you reside? And who are you and what right do you have to tell any other person that they do not have a right to defend their own life?
Thanks for that. The supporters of gun rights have a long history arguing with Laci. I doubt he'll respond, since he regards himself as superior to us colonists, but I appreciate what you had to say in the video and in your comment.
Thank you, Greg.
Finch has it exactly right. Her speech reminds me of the saying about how gun control advocates see being a victim as morally superior to explaining to the police why the rapist lies dead at a woman's feet. In this case, why the would-be rapist got a no with an exclamation mark.
Would-be rapist?" What the hell are you talking about, Greg?
This is not some stranger, but her husband. If he was such a threat to her why didn't she get a court order to restrain him?
Like that's going to work. A court restraining order doesn't physically prevent anything. Just like the laws on the books, only adds penalties AFTER the fact.
Because a court order that doesn't lock someone up isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
No surprise at your attitude being you don't like the law.If he was a danger, he should be known as such by the police and the courts. It certainly would be part of the self defense evidence if anything would happen, and a trip to jail if anything happened. Just another piece of the legal process you refuse to follow.
Anonymous brings up a good point. Not necessarily that a court order would have made a difference, but why was Elizabeth in the same room with a guy capable of deadly violence. Why didn't she get the hell away from that dangerous guy long before? That's the real solution to domestic violence, not carrying a gun.Yet, in the case she described, it sounds like the gun did indeed save the day. And I congratulate her for having had the discretion to not shoot, which given the circumstances, she probably would have gotten away with. As everyone knows I love nothing more than to point out unnecessary shootings all dressed up as legitimate DGUs. This one sounds like the real thing.
As Dog gone why she felt the need to get a restraining order AND a CCW.
Mike, I believe that the vast majority of gun owners I know would have acted similarly as I did that day. We truly are not a rabid group of folks looking for someone to shoot and then yell, "I STOOD MY GROUND!" There will always be exceptions to this, as with everything in life. But, I think it's important to consider what actually happens after someone kills another in self-defense. Anyone who thinks that person pats himself on the back and is proud of his actions that day is someone who seriously concerns me with their lack of empathy and humanity and their callousness. Even in the most clear-cut case of self-defense, any reasonable person is going to be haunted for the rest of their lives with serious psychological issues seated in the fact that, even though their actions may have been completely justified, they still took the life of another human. I am continuously amazed and appalled at the offensive and boorish characteristics that most gun control activists indiscriminately assign to gun owners. Tolerance is a two way street.
Elizabeth, I think we agree on this pretty much, all except for the definition of "vast majority." Greg often uses that justification for no additional inconvenience in the form of common-sense gun control laws. The problem is that even what's left over after you eliminate the "vast majority" adds up to millions of people. Simple improvements in gun control which would interfere in your life not at all would impact that group greatly. That's what I'm talking about.
Tell me though how more laws will help that. It's already long established that criminals do not follow laws, hence they are criminals. How do you propose to legislate personal responsibility and in what cases have laws worked to establish and enforce personal responsibility in the past?
Just so we're clear, this is a sample of what Mikeb regards as common sense:Tribunals to decide whether a person may own a gun, discretionary issue of carry licenses, psychological testing of gun owners, safe storage requirements that include a safe that cannot be easily removed from the premises, medical testing for gun ownership to include a measurement of body mass index, bans on many types of firearms, bans on possession of ammunition that doesn't match guns you own, licensing and registration of guns, home inspections to verify storage, magazine limitations, denial of gun ownership to anyone with a disability, and on and on and on.That's what he means by inconvenience.
MikeB: “Simple improvements in gun control which would interfere in your life not at all would impact that group greatly. That's what I'm talking about.”Mike, you “improvements” means a may-issue permitting system where she doesn’t get to carry at all. I’d call that interfering.
If that's the case, Greg, then Mike would be confusing inconvenience with unconstitutional.
Look up what he means by "proper gun control."
Elizabeth, not able to resist repeating the NRA talking points, says, "Tell me though how more laws will help that. It's already long established that criminals do not follow laws, hence they are criminals."The problem with that criminals-don't-obey-the-laws nonsense is this, all guns used in criminal activity start out the lawful property of gun owners like you. Through various means these guns flow into the criminal world. Laws like safe storage and background checks on private sales would directly impact that flow. Get it?
Mikeb, that would be important if guns were like tomatoes. A tomato can't last all that long. If it's not sold soon, it rots. So each tomato sold has to be just about new off the vine. By contrast, guns last a long time. There are more than 300,000,000 guns in this country. Even if you could violate our rights to the degree that every new gun sold would have to be licensed, registered, and regularly inspected, all of those old guns would be available to form a black market. And then other guns would be smuggled in.It's called realism, something you should acquaint yourself with.
Mike, those aren't NRA talking points. I think it's perfectly clear that I'm quite capable of my own thoughts and statements. I'm not even an NRA member. And nice thought, but you're making a big jump and lots of baseless assumptions there. We've been your route before with the prohibition of alcohol. That didn't work very well, now did it? How's it working with illegal drugs? Hell, how is the strictly regulated big pharma industry working for that matter? Not very well. If you're so concerned with death, then take a look at drugs and alcohol. They killed more than twice the number of people in 2010 than did firearms. 61% of the firearm deaths were suicide. If someone wants to kill themselves, lack of access to a gun will not stop them. Motor vehicles also killed more people in 2010 than did firearms. Hell, only 4,820 more people died from firearms than from falls. Would you like to regulate the hell out of walking and the use of legs as well?I appreciate your desire to prevent death but common sense and the facts are just not on your side.
Elizabeth, the comparison to Prohibition is one of the stupider ones out there. We're not talking about prohibiting guns, are we?The fact that there are bigger killers out there is besides the point. Or, was that your intention, to divert the discussion? The 30,000+ gun deaths each year are a national disgrace because many of them are easily preventable with some simple changes in gun laws.
Greg, in a fit of hysteria said of the 300 million guns now in circulation, "all of those old guns would be available to form a black market"They most certainly would not. Most of those guns are just like yours, in the possession of someone who has every intention of holding onto them. They do not form a black market unless you let them.
Wrong. Changes in gun laws will do absolutely nothing toward eliminating preventable gun deaths. It's not a legal issue, it's a social issue and one of personal responsibility. When will people learn that you cannot legislate these things?
Mikeb, comparisons to Prohibition are apt, especially since the ban on alcohol has may-issue exceptions. In fact, it was exactly the kind of system you want about guns. It made life difficult for ordinary citizens, encouraged a black market, and benefitted criminals.
Well, Anonymous (and, after reading your asinine words, I can understand why you'd want to remain anonymous), because he cornered me in my rural driveway at the time and the court had already closed for the day. If only I'd anticipated his sudden psychological breakdown and had a little piece of paper with me. Darn.ARE YOU ON CRACK?! This was a man who, while certainly being an asshole by all accounts, had never displayed violence toward me before. I had no cause to have obtained a restraining order prior to this event. You are possibly the most moronic person I have ever crossed paths with on the Internet. When someone snaps on you and comes running at you with a retractable baton yelling that he's going to kill you, with NO OTHER PERSON in sight, how about you wave a paper in his face and see how that works out for you. I suggest you read up on restraining orders and the psychology behind why they are not an effective tool against violence. This article would be a good place to start: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-act-violence/201207/do-domestic-violence-restraining-orders-ever-really-work
Thanks for the additional details, Elizabeth. I'm glad you were armed that day.
Oh geez, another foul mouthed gun loon. I never said a restraining order would stop anyone. It's part of the legal process and more ammunition to put the guy away for a long time. Your insults are part of the Greg thinking. Are you one of his students? The students that ranked near last in educational achievement.Have you been drinking today, or are you always a foul mouthed asshole?
Anyone here care to point out the wild hypocrisy coming from Anonymous berating me for using foul language by calling me a foul-mouthed asshole? Oh, I already did. Equally hypocritical is berating me for insulting them while calling me a gun loon and insinuating that I (who, by the way, scored 1400 on my SATs and possess a college degree), am lacking in educational achievement. And, since it appears that alcohol is either on your mind or close to your heart, you might be interested to know that I may have a drink once every three or four months. I'm just not that into it. The fact is, Anonymous, you have no logical or rational response to the data which has just been presented and have done a very poor job of supporting your position. But, you do an excellent job of portraying yourself as a five year old via the Internet, so congratulations on that.
Facts is honey I used no foul language until after you did. You have proven yourself to be the 5 year old, and thanks for that. I guess you expect people to kiss your ass after you insult them and swear at them. Sorry, I don't do that. Then you imply I'm a dope addict, proving what a lying slut you are.
Ms. Finch, our resident Anonymous Coward honors you with his vitriol. I have long held that there is as much nobility in being despised by the despicable as there is in being admired by the admirable. Anon makes it clear that you are despised by the very despicable, indeed.Wear his puerile hatred like the badge of honor it is.
Elizabeth, if I remember correctly, you were a bit acerbic from your very first comments here. Anonymous responds in kind, but in this argument it's you who's calling the kettle black. The funniest hypocrisy, though, is Kurt coming to your defense by pointing out the "puerile hatred" of Anonymous. He (Kurt) is the master at glib put-downs and slick nastiness.Refer yourself to the comments of ssgmarkcr and TS for the opposite. There's are tenacious and extremist and fanatical but with nary a called name or put-down.
I did not come to Ms. Finch's "defense." She has more than once proven very well that she is quite capable of defending herself, both physically and against the mentally challenged attempts at insult by our resident Anonymous Coward.For me to "come to her defense" would be inexcusably patronizing, would it not?I do kinda enjoy the idea of being "the master at glib put-downs and slick nastiness." Where were you last time I had business cards printed up ;-)?
Mike, the difference here is that I did not show myself to be a hypocrite. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Anon, which actually made me giggle when I read it. How can you miss that I was being cursed at for cursing? That was not a respond in kind. It's clear that Anon hasn't the capacity to respond in kind. He's over his head here. As someone who has spent much time studying people, Anon is probably one of the most simple and base displays of the immature and underdeveloped frontal lobe as I've seen. I am absolutely acerbic and I occasionally use foul language and I make no bones about it. But there's an art to it, which Anon surely does not possess. It's like Mark Twain said about the art of swearing, "You got the words right, Livy, but you don't know the tune."
Elizabeth, just to let you know, I've been teaching English composition and literature for the last fifteen years, but Anonymous acts the same way to me.But please keep coming here. I like your style, especially your Mark Twain quotation.
Something tells me that Anonymous hasn't either the capacity or the inclination to act differently. I'm no English composition or literature expert, but I appreciate a firm grasp and sincere effort to communicate effectively. My dad was a political speech writer, among other fascinating things, and impressed upon me that an important message deserves proper literacy.My dad was also a fan of Mark Twain and peppered my childhood with his quotes. I find myself referring back to many of them. Thank you!
I find it hard to believe your dad wrote political speeches full of swear words, calling people vile names, and claiming they were drug addicts. That's not effective communications, unless you are taking lessons from Greg the guy who has the ranked dumbest students in the nation. You are nothing more than a potty mouth, which shows a clear lack of intelligence.
Elizabeth said, "I am absolutely acerbic and I occasionally use foul language and I make no bones about it. But there's an art to it, which Anon surely does not possess. It's like Mark Twain said about the art of swearing, "You got the words right, Livy, but you don't know the tune.""I tend to agree with you again. I personally enjoy a bit of profanity on my blog, but when the name calling becomes excessive, I disallow the comments. Anonymous, and everyone else, knows this.
Anon, you're hereby ignored for being irrelevant and contributing nothing of worth. Enjoy your life the best you are able.
This particular anonymous poster, I think, is one of many anonymous sock puppets used by one of the more inane posters on this blog. He never has anything good to say or any intelligent responses. All he has is insults.
I guess your reading comprehension does not include who insulted who first. Very simple since it only involves this thread.
Wrong, Mr. G, Anonymous makes all the standard gun control arguments. Have you really missed them and seen only the "insults?"
Mikeb, I've wondered all along if "Anonymous" isn't Laci, Dog Gone, or Jadegold. All three of them blather nonsense and curse at and insult anyone who calls them on it.
Which is a "reply in kind" response to your name calling, insulting comments. Take responsibility for your starting it. I have no clue why you think people should treat you nice when you treat people like an asshole.
Except you treat ssgmarkcr and myself with the same insults, even though as Mike just stated, we have been “tenacious and extremist and fanatical but with nary a called name or put-down.”
So anon, you would rather act like a 5 year old by the old "he started it first" meme. Are you mature enough to be the first to stop it?
You guys jumped on Greg's bandwagon. A bad choice, my rule still applies.
Anonymous, I don't recall you ever actually stating your position. You fling attacks at anyone on the gun rights side, and you twist our words, but you don't actually contribute anything of your own.