Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

I started to watch that video, but stopped when I saw it was the Cato Institute. I have encountered them before, and they are to the right of Attila the Hun! It is impossible to get a balanced opinion from that mob.

[Gallstones]

What a twat.

How come they are ALWAYS twats?

I think if you choose to carry a gun, and shoot an innocent person, you should be shot yourself. Only fair.

Shoot an innocent person?
It is obvious you didn't even watch the video.

[Gallstones]

I started to watch that video, but stopped when I saw it was the Cato Institute. I have encountered them before, and they are to the right of Attila the Hun! It is impossible to get a balanced opinion from that mob.

Not relevant to the speaker or the excellent presentation of information on the Stand Your Ground law.
If you truely want to be informed on an aspect of law, you don't use lame excuses to be too lazy to watch a video with an expert on the topic.

[Blind groper]

Gallstones

it is the GIGO principle. I am not in the habit of putting garbage into my head, if i can help it.

[Gallstones]

Gallstones

it is the GIGO principle. I am not in the habit of putting garbage into my head, if i can help it.

You are in the habit of shutting your mind to information that doesn't fit your own biases and are not above inventing retarded excuses to justify that.

Massad Ayoob doesn't waste his time offering garbage.

[MrJonno]

You can't really have much of a discussion between two groups of people where

Group 1 thinks : anyone who carries a handgun or other weapon without an extremely good reason should be locked up for many years (or shot dead by the police)
Group 2 thinks : carrying an gun is an inalienable right

I'm in group 1 as I suspect most people outside the US are and a majority (but probably shrinking) number of people in the US are in group 2

There really isn't room for a middle ground, you can be as reasonable as you want and listen to the other side but this isn't like arguing over whether the legal drinking age should be 18 or 21 so lets go for 19.5

[Gallstones]

Massad Ayoob is talking about a law, one that has been newsworthy for some months recently.
He does an excellent job in explaining that law regardless of what jonno group he'd be slotted into.

[tattuchu]

You can't really have much of a discussion between two groups of people where

Group 1 thinks : anyone who carries a handgun or other weapon without an extremely good reason should be locked up for many years (or shot dead by the police)
Group 2 thinks : carrying an gun is an inalienable right

I'm in group 1 as I suspect most people outside the US are and a majority (but probably shrinking) number of people in the US are in group 2

There really isn't room for a middle ground, you can be as reasonable as you want and listen to the other side but this isn't like arguing over whether the legal drinking age should be 18 or 21 so lets go for 19.5

Place me in Group 1, please.

[Gallstones]

You can't really have much of a discussion between two groups of people where

Group 1 thinks : anyone who carries a handgun or other weapon without an extremely good reason should be locked up for many years (or shot dead by the police)
Group 2 thinks : carrying an gun is an inalienable right

I'm in group 1 as I suspect most people outside the US are and a majority (but probably shrinking) number of people in the US are in group 2

There really isn't room for a middle ground, you can be as reasonable as you want and listen to the other side but this isn't like arguing over whether the legal drinking age should be 18 or 21 so lets go for 19.5

Place me in Group 1, please.

Yes, Group 1. The people who advocate lethal violence be done against law abiding citizens.
Something to be proud of, that.

[MrJonno]

Yes, Group 1. The people who advocate lethal violence be done against law abiding citizens.

No only against people who carry weapons who arent law abiding citizens if the law says they aren't

[Blind groper]

Group 1. The people who advocate lethal violence be done against law abiding citizens.
Something to be proud of, that.

Quite the reverse, actually. Us group 1 people recognise that the more guns there are, and especially hand guns, the more lethal violence. Thus we want fewer hand guns so there will be a lot less lethal violence.

What you group 2 people refuse to accept is that you cannot give guns to law abiding people without a whole lot of those guns ending up in the hands of criminals. This means that the more guns there are, the more gun crime.

Compare the USA, which has the most guns per capita of any nation, with Japan, which has the fewest. The result is that the USA has the highest rate of gun crime and gun murders of any wealthy nation, while Japan has the lowest.

[orpheus]

What you group 2 people refuse to accept is that you cannot give guns to law abiding people without a whole lot of those guns ending up in the hands of criminals. This means that the more guns there are, the more gun crime.

QFT

[Jason]

Actually, the guy in that video presented the facts of the law very clearly and with little to no bias.

[JimC]

You can't really have much of a discussion between two groups of people where

Group 1 thinks : anyone who carries a handgun or other weapon without an extremely good reason should be locked up for many years (or shot dead by the police)
Group 2 thinks : carrying an gun is an inalienable right

I'm in group 1 as I suspect most people outside the US are and a majority (but probably shrinking) number of people in the US are in group 2

There really isn't room for a middle ground, you can be as reasonable as you want and listen to the other side but this isn't like arguing over whether the legal drinking age should be 18 or 21 so lets go for 19.5

A rather absolutist division - there is always room for a middle ground.

For example, a move from an absolutist view of Group 2 might apply to many Americans. They may say that owning guns is generally a right, but may wish for more restrictions than, say, Gallstones. These might include:
* more powerful background/mental health checks, removing the right to own guns from unstable people
* strict laws on the safe storage of all guns (Seth showed in an earlier thread a rather clever locking device for a gun that can be accessed quickly by the owner, but kids can't grab)
* no concealed carry of handguns
* limits to magazine capacity on rifles
Now I know that some on this thread would fight even these restrictions, but that's not the point. I list them to show that attitudes to guns do not have to be all or nothing.

In addition the "or shot dead by the police" line was rather absurd, and lacked context. If you mean simply because a policeman notices you have a pistol, that is lunacy. If you mean to prevent you from committing a crime, then that would be an option for any armed police officer.

[Gallstones]

Yes, Group 1. The people who advocate lethal violence be done against law abiding citizens.

No only against people who carry weapons who arent law abiding citizens if the law says they aren't

That would include anyone threatening bodily harm or lethal harm and ergo we have legitimacy for group 2.

You refuse to acknowledge the most fundamental fact of your utopia--the police show up after the fact. They can only ever "shoot dead" someone threatening them.
It is too late for you and yours by the time LE gets there.