US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[mistermack]

This is getting weirder by the minute.
You don't really do much for your own case.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Fuck the gun laws etc... (interesting as the thread was).
I want to know about these dreams now....

[JimC]

I repeat what I have said before; the contexts of living in countries so disparate in relative gun ownership and attitudes to firearms are so wildly different it makes men from Mars and women from Venus look like identical twins. I suspect the point of either side criticising the other's policies is not only moot, but plain crazy...

[Clinton Huxley]

The US is more like some fly blown central Asian republic than a first world nation in some respects. You know, in terms of primitive gun love and religiosity. Weird how the two often go together.

[mozg]

I honestly don't care who you shoot, or why.
I'm commenting on the difference in laws between two countries, and what I think about their relative merits.
I hope you do find someone to shoot, but in the meantime, enjoy yourself dreaming about it.

Where I live anyone who enters my house uninvited is presumed by the law to have created a reasonable belief that they will cause me serious bodily injury, rape or death, and the use of deadly force is automatically justified.

I am under no obligation at all to flee my own home, and I prefer it that way.

The US is more like some fly blown central Asian republic than a first world nation in some respects. You know, in terms of primitive gun love and religiosity. Weird how the two often go together.

Appreciation for firearms, owning them and enjoying shooting is no more primitive than appreciate for automobiles, owning them, and driving them.

[Clinton Huxley]

[quote="mistermack"

The US is more like some fly blown central Asian republic than a first world nation in some respects. You know, in terms of primitive gun love and religiosity. Weird how the two often go together.

Appreciation for firearms, owning them and enjoying shooting is no more primitive than appreciate for automobiles, owning them, and driving them.

No. Much though I'd like to say that Jeremy Clarkson is worse than your average gun nut, I fear it isn't true.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if a love of weapons is a marker of psychopathy.

[Svartalf]

I would staunchly deny any assertions that I am a psychopath. Dr Hannibal Lecter, MD

[Clinton Huxley]

I would staunchly deny any assertions that I am a psychopath. Dr Hannibal Lecter, MD

Psychopaths can be superficially charming. Which means every frenchman is a suspect

[Svartalf]

Whereas the brits are merely terminal nevropaths...

[Clinton Huxley]

Whereas the brits are merely terminal nevropaths...

Neuropaths? Cold feet?

[mistermack]

Where I live anyone who enters my house uninvited is presumed by the law to have created a reasonable belief that they will cause me serious bodily injury, rape or death, and the use of deadly force is automatically justified.

So a doctor gets an emergency call about a heart attack. Gets to the wrong property, finds the door ajar and gets no answer. Enters and you blow his brains out.
Congratulations, your "reasonable belief" matches your logical prowess.

Or, you're walking down the street, and get mugged and shot.
There's nobody around and you have no phone. You notice the door open in one of the houses and can't get attention, so you stagger inside, hoping to phone for an ambulance.
Then the householder comes downstairs and blows your brains out.
Sound familiar?

Your "reasonable belief" is only reasonable to a certain kind of intelligence. Or lack of it.

[Gallstones]

Fuck the gun laws etc... (interesting as the thread was).
I want to know about these dreams now....

• 

I'm sorry, but you are not authorized to access these dreams.

[JimC]

Clinton Huxley wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if a love of weapons is a marker of psychopathy.

Now I do think that is a completely OTT remark. One can prefer a society with a low level of hand-gun ownership, while still enjoying rifle shooting and hunting, for example.

[Seth]

I honestly don't care who you shoot, or why.
I'm commenting on the difference in laws between two countries, and what I think about their relative merits.
I hope you do find someone to shoot, but in the meantime, enjoy yourself dreaming about it.

Where I live anyone who enters my house uninvited is presumed by the law to have created a reasonable belief that they will cause me serious bodily injury, rape or death, and the use of deadly force is automatically justified.

I am under no obligation at all to flee my own home, and I prefer it that way.

The US is more like some fly blown central Asian republic than a first world nation in some respects. You know, in terms of primitive gun love and religiosity. Weird how the two often go together.

Appreciation for firearms, owning them and enjoying shooting is no more primitive than appreciate for automobiles, owning them, and driving them.

And, factually speaking, the former is far, far less dangerous than the latter, even in the US.

[Seth]

Where I live anyone who enters my house uninvited is presumed by the law to have created a reasonable belief that they will cause me serious bodily injury, rape or death, and the use of deadly force is automatically justified.

So a doctor gets an emergency call about a heart attack. Gets to the wrong property, finds the door ajar and gets no answer. Enters and you blow his brains out.
Congratulations, your "reasonable belief" matches your logical prowess.

That's why doctors don't do such things, paramedics in ambulances accompanied by police officers do, and they take great pains to make sure that they knock and announce their identity and intentions before entering a residence uninvited. I like it that way. It means they have to be careful, and I get to enjoy absolute security in my home.

Or, you're walking down the street, and get mugged and shot.
There's nobody around and you have no phone. You notice the door open in one of the houses and can't get attention, so you stagger inside, hoping to phone for an ambulance.
Then the householder comes downstairs and blows your brains out.
Sound familiar?

That's why you don't do that. Your personal problems do not necessarily entitle you to barge into someone else's home. But I think that Mozg is overstating the law a bit. I'm not sure where he lives, but most "Castle Doctrine" laws require a) an uninvited entry, b) the intent to commit some crime while in the residence, c) and a reasonable belief on the part of the homeowner that some degree of force is being proffered.

This is usually carefully specified in the law precisely to prevent the sort of situations you're putting up as examples. The classic one used in most arguments against such laws in the legislature here in Colorado, during the debates on the "Make My Day Law" were as follows:

"What happens if somebody gets drunk, wanders in to the wrong house in a drunken stupor?"

The answer is, you can't shoot them because there is a) no intent (which may be manifested by actions) to commit another crime other than the uninvited entry, and there is no offer of force "no matter how slight."

On the other hand, if the same drunk breaks (or merely walks) in, mistakenly thinking it's his house, and then begins drunkenly assaulting the homeowners or residents, he's a) made an uninvited entry; b) manifested intent to commit a crime like assault or even harassment; and c) offered "any degree of physical force, no matter how slight" to an occupant of the home. This provides the homeowner with the legal justification to use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against the intruder, without criminal or civil liability.

The lesson? Don't get drunk and belligerently walk into the wrong house, because you might get shot dead. That doesn't sound like too much of an imposition on people, to avoid such behavior.

Your "reasonable belief" is only reasonable to a certain kind of intelligence. Or lack of it.

It's the former, and it's a widespread social belief here in the US that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions, including their bad actions, or their negligent and careless actions, up to and including their getting killed as a result of doing something bad, evil, negligent, careless or stupid.

The lesson? Don't do bad, evil, careless, negligent or stupid things. What's so tough about that behavorial standard?