Connecticut (et al)

[Hermit]

...the reason to carry guns is that they are the most effective tool for general attack ever invented. They have the broadest application, the broadest levels of force available, and the capacity to kill a school student instantly and with finality.

I guess you'll say next that every school student should be carrying.

[amused]

[Tyrannical]

Unsurprisingly enough, some teachers in Israel are trained and armed to deal with crazed gunmen. No reason why we couldn't do the same.

No one expects your sweet kindergarten teacher to be packing heat. There are plenty of law enforcement and military people that retire in their forties looking for a second career and teaching could be a good choice for some of them.

[aspire1670]

Unsurprisingly enough, some teachers in Israel are trained and armed to deal with crazed gunmen. No reason why we couldn't do the same.

No one expects your sweet kindergarten teacher to be packing heat. There are plenty of law enforcement and military people that retire in their forties looking for a second career and teaching could be a good choice for some of them.

Unsurprisingly, you have failed to cite the evidence that some teachers are armed in the classroom.

[MrJonno]

Using Israel as an example of good gun control is like using North Korea as an good example of state mass synchronised dancing

[Seth]

The Yale and Harvard reports have been discredited as sloppy, biased and incorrect.

The Yale and Harvard reports which say John Lott has presented flawed data, has been criticised by John Lott as sloppy, biased and incorrect. Only the most naive person would believe that.

And a whole bunch of other qualified folks too...which doesn't happen to include you.

all it takes is for ONE person to have been saved by a lawfully owned firearm and that's sufficient,

You are clearly not a fan of Mr. Spock who says that the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

Quite right I'm not. Neither you nor a government nor anyone else is allowed to sacrifice MY life or safety (or anyone elses) on the premise that it's better for the collective that I be victimized or killed. That's the definition of tyranny of the masses. My right to defend myself effectively is absolute and not the subject for a popular vote.

However, it is simple maths. If an action results in saving one life at the cost of more than 1, it is wrong.

The right to self defense, and the RKBA which supports the right to self defense, does not accept your bogus statistical arguments that reduce the dignity and lives of individual citizens to a statistical footnote in the calculus of collectivism. My right to be armed has absolutely no effect on the safety of any other person so long as I only use my weapons for lawful self-defense. If someone else misuses their weapon somehow, that is their problem and they will pay the price for that negligence. Again, according to your stupid argument, we must ban cars because some people operate them irresponsibly and kill THOUSANDS of times more people every year than guns do.

I am not responsible or liable for what others do with their weapons, be they firearms, automobiles, kitchen knives or whatever else in history has been used as a weapon...right down to rocks and sticks. They are responsible for their own actions and may be held accountable for those actions. But my rights cannot be infringed merely because someone else might abuse their rights.

Putting guns into homes will result in the odd rare, successful self defense, but will result in many more deaths from suicide or other homicide.

Yeah, two million "odd" successful defensive gun uses a year.

60% of all women who are murdered in the home are murdered by their male partner.

So what? Murder is illegal no matter where it happens, and the fact that some murderer might murder his female partner doesn't mean that I can't have a female partner. By your logic, we'd be better off making it illegal for women to cohabitate with men, which would prevent all those murders completely. Of course that's ridiculous, but then again so is your argument that I must be disarmed because someone else might murder their spouse. Asinine.

That male partner carries out the murder with the gun, if one is kept at home, and the odds of such a murder are increased dramatically if there is a gun at home.

Again, so what? That's not my problem and I'm not going to be disarmed based on your paranoid fears that someone, somewhere, sometime might murder someone.

87% of all killings in the home by gun are suicides. That is a killing by the gun kept in the home.

So what? Who cares? People who want to die have a right to die, and they have a right to select whatever method they find most convenient and certain. My rights may not be infringed because someone, somewhere, sometime may decide to commit suicide. Using that ridiculous logic, we must ban rope, natural gas, prescription drugs, over the counter drugs, razor blades, knives and a host of other things used for suicide too. Asinine.

The maths are simple. Those who keep guns at home are putting their whole family at risk, and the self defense they claim is a very low probability event. The chances of suicide or spousal murder are much, much higher.

That's a decision that the family gets to make, not you and certainly not the government. Two million times a year or so guns in the home protect the occupants against criminal victimization. It's therefore up to the members of that household to decide which risks they choose to accept and which they choose to reject, and how to minimize any such risks from either side of the decision.

You may call these bullshit statistics, but each statistic represents a human life. If you ignore the stats, then people die.

Everybody dies. Big deal. So what? Is it unfortunate that some people die prematurely by their own hand? Yes, it's sad, but my right to defend myself effectively, regardless of how remote the possibility that I may have to do so, far outweighs my obligation to accede to disarmament in the interests of suicidal individuals. Their desire to end their lives will not be allowed to endanger my life by removing the tools I need for effective self defense. Period.

Your 'supreme court' examples are simply cases where the court let the police off the hook for not protecting someone where they were not in a position to do so. Of course I agree with the court. Policemen, like everyone else, are not supermen and cannot protect everyone all the time. However, when they can, they have the duty to do their damnedest to provide such protection.

No, in point of legal fact they do not. Trust me, I was a policeman for many years and I'm intimately familiar with the laws and duties of a police officer, and the first rule of police work is that nobody can force a police officer to sacrifice (or for that matter endanger) his own life for the benefit of another. There is no such duty or obligation. Police officers have the right to go home alive and intact at the end of every shift, and no one can force them to do otherwise. Police officers are NOT soldiers, who DO take an oath to obey lawful orders, even when those orders will result in their inevitable deaths.

If I see you getting the crap beaten out of you by a mob of bikers and I'm alone, I can stand there and watch it happen without doing anything at all and you (assuming you live) or your heirs (assuming you die) have no recourse in the law because I have not created a "special relationship" with you that would obligate me to defend you. If I see you burning to death in your car, I'm under no compulsion to risk my life to save you, and your heirs have no cause of action if I refuse to do so.

Now, if I ARREST you and take you into custody, THEN I have created a special relationship with you by a) disarming you; and b) rendering you incapable of self defense, and I AM legally liable for your health, safety and welfare. If I negligently fail to protect you while in custody (for example I arrest you, handcuff you to a tree in freezing weather and then leave and you die of hypothermia) THEN you may sue me for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, 18 USC 1982.

Those are the legal facts. You may dispute them if you like, but I suggest you research the statute and the precedents before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Most self-defense laws permit an individual to act on appearances in the urgency of the moment, recognizing that if the law required proof absolute of a deadly threat before self-defense was used, the victim would likely be dead before being authorized to protect his life.

There is also the question of courage. If a person sees someone who might, but also might not, be a threat, and shoots to kill without taking the risk of checking to find out, that shooter is an arrant, yellow bellied coward. To kill another person to avoid a minor risk involved in checking is the most despicable and scum bag behaviour.

Well, if he's not legally justified by circumstances that a reasonable man would find meet the requirements of the laws regarding the use of force in defense of a person, then he can be prosecuted for that "cowardice." You see, you're not allowed to just kill someone over a "minor risk." The law is quite specific in that regard.

Let's examine a classic self-defense situation that illustrates this point. You are walking through a parking garage when you are accosted by two individuals who are flashing what appear to be black semi-automatic handguns in their waistbands who demand you fork over your money or they will shoot you. Being an expert defensive handgun shooter, you know that you can draw and fire at both of them long before they can draw their guns from their baggy trousers and you make an instant decision to terminate what appears to you to be an imminent deadly threat of armed robbery. After firing four rounds, two to the first assailant's center mass and two to the second's, reserving the rest of the rounds in your magazine for follow-up head shots if either thug fails to go down, you take a cover position, continue to cover the assailants with your handgun while you call 911 and wait for the police. When the police are near, you holster your sidearm, put your hands in the air and attract their attention, announcing that the perps are down but may not be dead, and that you will obey any orders the police give you as they try to sort out the situation, which inevitably involves your being handcuffed for the officer's safety pending investigation.

You physically cooperate with the police, but you decline to answer any questions, requesting the presence of an attorney before any questioning.

During their investigation, the police discover that the weapons in the thug's waistbands are actually look-alike Airsoft pistols, not firearms.

Are you going to be prosecuted for murder?

We give medals to people who take risks to save the lives of other humans. That is courage. The opposite is those who will kill rather than take a small risk. Those people are beneath contempt. They are the most low down, asshole cowards.

I'd rather be a live "coward" than a dead hero. I've been in emergency services and police work most of my life, and the first rule of emergency response (in any sort of emergency) is "don't take foolish risks that turn you from a rescuer into a victim."

The second maxim of emergency response is "Don't agonize over the fate of a victim you are trying to rescue, you didn't put them in the position of danger, so you are not responsible for what happens to them. Do what you can to save them but go home alive and uninjured, because your family deserves that."

You can jump in the freezing water ill prepared to perform a swiftwater rescue if you like, or you may decline to respond appropriately with your sidearm if you are attacked. That's YOUR choice to make. Absolutely your choice. But you may NOT prevent ME from either doing, or not doing whatever I think is reasonable, appropriate, necessary and in my best interests to preserve MY life.

[Seth]

Unsurprisingly enough, some teachers in Israel are trained and armed to deal with crazed gunmen. No reason why we couldn't do the same.

No one expects your sweet kindergarten teacher to be packing heat. There are plenty of law enforcement and military people that retire in their forties looking for a second career and teaching could be a good choice for some of them.

Unsurprisingly, you have failed to cite the evidence that some teachers are armed in the classroom.

Here you go:

600x4352.jpg (48.07 KiB) Viewed 1018 times

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah (TheBlaze/AP) — Jessica Fiveash sees nothing wrong with arming teachers. She’s one herself, and learned Thursday how to safely use her 9 mm Ruger with a laser sight.

“If we have the ability to stop something, we should do it,” said the elementary school teacher, who along with nearly 200 other teachers in Utah took six hours of free gun training offered by the state’s leading gun lobby.

It is among the latest efforts to arm or train teachers to confront assailants after a gunman killed his mother and then went on a rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

...Continued...

[MrJonno]

Quite right I'm not. Neither you nor a government nor anyone else is allowed to sacrifice MY life or safety (or anyone elses) on the premise that it's better for the collective that I be victimized or killed. That's the definition of tyranny of the masses. My right to defend myself effectively is absolute and not the subject for a popular vote.

Actually I think the US government and many others have exactly that 'right' to sacrifice for you any cause they see fit, wonders of conscription. Not sure if we have it still in the UK or not but they do have that option in the US , not really relevant here as there would be such mass refusal that it could never be used now

[Seth]

Quite right I'm not. Neither you nor a government nor anyone else is allowed to sacrifice MY life or safety (or anyone elses) on the premise that it's better for the collective that I be victimized or killed. That's the definition of tyranny of the masses. My right to defend myself effectively is absolute and not the subject for a popular vote.

Actually I think the US government and many others have exactly that 'right' to sacrifice for you any cause they see fit, wonders of conscription.

Governments don't have "rights," they have powers, and they can do so only if they conscript me. And only if I agree to be conscripted. If I don't, they might kill me, but that's within the ability of any government, including yours. But they cannot force me to do something I refuse to do if I'm willing to suffer whatever punishment they decide to meet out.

Not sure if we have it still in the UK or not but they do have that option in the US , not really relevant here as there would be such mass refusal that it could never be used now

Yes, conscription is still available to Congress. It's also available to ANY government that has the monopoly on force whom the citizenry cannot defy. That would be YOU, Jonno my lad. On the other hand, in the US, attempts to conscript for an unjust cause or to support tyranny CAN be effectively defied by our citizenry because, well, we have arms that are every bit as effective as those held by the standing army, and there are 300 million of us and less than 10 million soldiers, guardsmen and police officers.

You're probably right that attempts to reinstitute the draft would be met with widespread resistance, but it depends entirely on what the cause is. The American people are well known for their willingness to serve in the military when the cause is just.

But that's a special case that does not apply to the non-wartime powers of Congress or the states.

[MrJonno]

I sure if the government waves the Stars and Stripes a flag 48% of the population will go and fight for any cause, can't see conscription working in the UK for any reasons ever again. Most of us have been cured of the disease of patriotism these days

[Seth]

I sure if the government waves the Stars and Stripes a flag 48% of the population will go and fight for any cause, can't see conscription working in the UK for any reasons ever again. Most of us have been cured of the disease of patriotism these days

I'll let Putin know that he can march Russian troops in right away.

Or perhaps I'll forward your missive to the French government. I'm sure they would enjoy butt-fucking you once again, as they have so many times.

[Blind groper]

Quite right I'm not. Neither you nor a government nor anyone else is allowed to sacrifice MY life or safety (or anyone elses) on the premise that it's better for the collective that I be victimized or killed. That's the definition of tyranny of the masses. My right to defend myself effectively is absolute and not the subject for a popular vote.

To paraphrase this, Seth.
You believe that your own selfish interests outweigh those of your fellows, and you do not believe in democracy - the rule of the majority.

Yeah, two million "odd" successful defensive gun uses a year.

That spurious belief has already been debunked with good references from university papers.

That's not my problem and I'm not going to be disarmed based on your paranoid fears that someone, somewhere, sometime might murder someone.

Again we see the core of Seth's beliefs, which are a selfish concern for himself, and to hell with the rest of the world. Ditto his views on suicide.

The first rule of police work is that nobody can force a police officer to sacrifice (or for that matter endanger) his own life for the benefit of another. There is no such duty or obligation.

I have not said otherwise. However, I suspect that a policeman who ignores the lives and welfare of the citizenry when he can help would not be likely to be promoted. Indeed, I suspect he would end up as a clerk. I doubt that too many police forces (except those that were terminally corrupt) would value a coward.

On the "live coward versus dead hero" thing.
I have not suggested you die to save someone. I suggested that a brave person will accept a risk to permit non lethal action. A person who has not taken even a small risk, but shoots someone dead to prevent a small risk, is a coward. Any worthwhile person should be willing to put his/her life on the line, if the risk is not too great, to save another person's life.

I have done this, myself, though not with anything involving guns. When I was 17 years old, I witnessed a young woman being ripped off the rocks and into the sea by storm waves. I dived in, and towed her to a place where the wave action was a bit less, and brought her safely ashore, at the cost of some bruising. Even at that age I was able to judge that the risk of my action was acceptable, and I saved that young woman's life.

I expect the equivalent actions from any human being who is worthy of the name. If it involves restraint in the use of firearms, then that is what I expect. Cowards will sacrifice someone else's life not just to save their own, but to prevent any risk to their own. Such cowardice is not acceptable to me.

[aspire1670]

Yes, conscription is still available to Congress. It's also available to ANY government that has the monopoly on force whom the citizenry cannot defy. That would be YOU, Jonno my lad. On the other hand, in the US, attempts to conscript for an unjust cause or to support tyranny CAN be effectively defied by our citizenry because, well, we have arms that are every bit as effective as those held by the standing army, and there are 300 million of us and less than 10 million soldiers, guardsmen and police officers.

Yabbut, the forces opposing you won't be stationary paper targets that don't fire back, Seth. Plus the last time I looked the US military had tanks, planes, artillery, bombers, drones, cruise missiles.........good luck fighting tyranny democracy.

[MrJonno]

I sure if the government waves the Stars and Stripes a flag 48% of the population will go and fight for any cause, can't see conscription working in the UK for any reasons ever again. Most of us have been cured of the disease of patriotism these days

I'll let Putin know that he can march Russian troops in right away.

Or perhaps I'll forward your missive to the French government. I'm sure they would enjoy butt-fucking you once again, as they have so many times.

Yeah an amphibious invasion in the days of ICBM's, don't think so somehow. We might one day get nuked but no one is going to invade us

[Hermit]

You are clearly not a fan of Mr. Spock who says that the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

Quite right I'm not. Neither you nor a government nor anyone else is allowed to sacrifice MY life or safety (or anyone elses) on the premise that it's better for the collective that I be victimized or killed. That's the definition of tyranny of the masses. My right to defend myself effectively is absolute and not the subject for a popular vote.

Best argument against sending soldiers off to war, knowing that thousands will be killed "for the good of the country" I ever heard. Never thought of you as a peacenik.