A gun in every house is a must

[La Xinga]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

The one with none because if things get violent the room with guns is on equal footing and the room without guns will be run by the physically strong. I figure between women, the infirm, the old, and the young there's a solid chance that I'm tougher than many or even most people in the second room and therefore able to control them. That's the shitty thing about guns, they introduce a level of equality into situations where the strong could otherwise rule the weak.

Thus take that into society.

Without guns, strong rule weak.
With guns, equal.

[Kernen]

The circumstance that comes to mind for me is a homeless person having to use an expedient weapon or suddenly acquired weapon in violation of their parole to stop an attack.

OK, the case of a homeless person. Seems plausible enough. Being attacked by someone so drunk (or whatever) that they drop their gun where the homeless person can grab it ... this is a bit sketchy. But some homeless parolees would have a case to be allowed to carry a pistol.

A circumstance unfortunately common among the paroled homeless, and a case that I've had the misfortune of working on in the past. I hate criminal practice.

That you cannot conceive of such situations is your failing, not mine. You seem either unable or unwilling to entertain scenarios that do not serve your position.

Nope. I just don't see why I should help anyone make their own argument. Particularly when I'm outnumbered 4 to one. My position was that no-one should get gun rights the day they're let out of prison. You've pointed out one case, homeless on parole, where it would be reasonable for the parole board to make an exception.

There's no need to be insulting about it. I hadn't considered homeless parolees, that's it. It does not follow that I was entirely wrong in not wanting to grant gun rights to people who are far more likely to go back into dangerous situations thinking they'll be fine because they have self-defense. It wasn't fine the first time! The homeless person doesn't have a lot of choice, and all places are somewhat dangerous, so they're an exception.

This isn't even standard General snark. There's something rich about complaining about my tone when you've been condecending to everybody else, especially when my tone is hardy insulting.

My point is not that felons deserve unlimited firearm rights. My point is that the organs of government are capable of nuanced application of law that does not require blanket bans. You challenged this. I've just demonstrated why such bans are not readily applicable. Let's not confuse the issue at hand to gain a rhetorical advantage.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Say you have an argument with an acquaintance who came to visit, but then tried to blackmail you. You say you're going to the toilet but really you go get your gun. You stand at a safe distance and shoot them a few times in the chest. They die.

That'd be incredibly foolish or bad. In doing so, the person being blackmailed committed a greater crime than the person they killed. Such a person could be charged with murder unless they can stage the scene to look like the other person was a threat and was breaking and entering, and the judicial system/police are fooled into ruling the murder as being legal.

It probably varies by state, but a person CAN enter legally but then refuse to leave, becoming a trespasser.

Also quite plausible is that another legal resident (eg your wife) invites someone in, you come home, see a stranger, and think he must be a trespasser. There's no way to be sure he isn't armed, so you shoot him. Note that in this case there IS another witness but she has an incentive to lie to you and the prosecutor will find it hard to prise you apart as you'll both plead the 5th.

Not sure if many have ever proven blackmail/exortion, but if proven the other person can get hit with a misdemeanor in the US, if its the only crime in play. If being extorted you usually have two choices practically speaking, you can comply to the demands or you can refuse and call their bluff. Sometimes its better to refuse and just accept the negative consequences of not caving in. You have to decide for yourself and weigh the cost/merits of going down either path.

The one main benefit of not accepting blackmail is that their leverage is gone, if you have the foresight to not give them anything more with which they can hurt you even more with. They might even give up if they see you can maintain enough control such as there is.

No, blackmail is payment not to tell. They still have the information. They are vulnerable if their "information" is the only case against you but usually that isn't so: investigators can use their information to find more that will stand alone despite theirs being tainted. Don't do crimes, and you won't have to worry about blackmailers.

Maybe the scenario works better without a legally-entangled motive. Drop the blackmail, make it a request to (legally) marry your 13 year old son.

[Zohiania]

If every house has a gun, then government wouldn't need a registry since we know that everyone has guns, subtracting the homeless of course

[Greater Cesnica]

OK, the case of a homeless person. Seems plausible enough. Being attacked by someone so drunk (or whatever) that they drop their gun where the homeless person can grab it ... this is a bit sketchy. But some homeless parolees would have a case to be allowed to carry a pistol.



Nope. I just don't see why I should help anyone make their own argument. Particularly when I'm outnumbered 4 to one. My position was that no-one should get gun rights the day they're let out of prison. You've pointed out one case, homeless on parole, where it would be reasonable for the parole board to make an exception.

There's no need to be insulting about it. I hadn't considered homeless parolees, that's it. It does not follow that I was entirely wrong in not wanting to grant gun rights to people who are far more likely to go back into dangerous situations thinking they'll be fine because they have self-defense. It wasn't fine the first time! The homeless person doesn't have a lot of choice, and all places are somewhat dangerous, so they're an exception.

This isn't even standard General snark. There's something rich about complaining about my tone when you've been condecending to everybody else, especially when my tone is hardy insulting.

My point is not that felons deserve unlimited firearm rights. My point is that the organs of government are capable of nuanced application of law that does not require blanket bans. You challenged this. I've just demonstrated why such bans are not readily applicable. Let's not confuse the issue at hand to gain a rhetorical advantage.

I mean, it's quite apparent that they don't know what they're talking about. They've been reminded of this before, yet they refuse to view sources that may run counter to their narrative. Oh well.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

OK, the case of a homeless person. Seems plausible enough. Being attacked by someone so drunk (or whatever) that they drop their gun where the homeless person can grab it ... this is a bit sketchy. But some homeless parolees would have a case to be allowed to carry a pistol.



Nope. I just don't see why I should help anyone make their own argument. Particularly when I'm outnumbered 4 to one. My position was that no-one should get gun rights the day they're let out of prison. You've pointed out one case, homeless on parole, where it would be reasonable for the parole board to make an exception.

There's no need to be insulting about it. I hadn't considered homeless parolees, that's it. It does not follow that I was entirely wrong in not wanting to grant gun rights to people who are far more likely to go back into dangerous situations thinking they'll be fine because they have self-defense. It wasn't fine the first time! The homeless person doesn't have a lot of choice, and all places are somewhat dangerous, so they're an exception.

This isn't even standard General snark. There's something rich about complaining about my tone when you've been condecending to everybody else, especially when my tone is hardy insulting.

If insults in retaliation for condescension is fair game, then I've already had them.

That you cannot conceive of such situations is your failing, not mine. You seem either unable or unwilling to entertain scenarios that do not serve your position.

I said nothing TO YOU to provoke this. It's rather "rich" as you say.

My point is not that felons deserve unlimited firearm rights. My point is that the organs of government are capable of nuanced application of law that does not require blanket bans. You challenged this. I've just demonstrated why such bans are not readily applicable. Let's not confuse the issue at hand to gain a rhetorical advantage.

I challenged you to provide an example of the special circumstances. You did. And I suppose there are others. I proposed a general rule, now I admit there should be exceptions. I'm struck by any lack of argument about the general rule: do we agree that some some violent felons should not have legal access to firearms, and carrying a firearm (not just picking one up in an emergency) would be a breach of their conditions?

[Marchas]

Nah, no guns in houses. It is dangerous if the people have lots of guns. More guns for law enforcements

[Greater Cesnica]

More guns for law enforcements

Implying law enforcement are complete goody-two-shoes who have never abused their power, ever.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Nah, no guns in houses. It is dangerous if the people have lots of guns. More guns for law enforcements

Law enforcement have one gun each. How many do they need?

[Zohiania]

Nah, no guns in houses. It is dangerous if the people have lots of guns. More guns for law enforcements

I am not sure how having many guns is any more dangerous than having a single firearm. Would you care to elaborate? Furthermore, it has been shown that people who own multiple firearms tend to be more experienced when it comes to gun safety.

[Kernen]

This isn't even standard General snark. There's something rich about complaining about my tone when you've been condecending to everybody else, especially when my tone is hardy insulting.

If insults in retaliation for condescension is fair game, then I've already had them.

That you cannot conceive of such situations is your failing, not mine. You seem either unable or unwilling to entertain scenarios that do not serve your position.

I said nothing TO YOU to provoke this. It's rather "rich" as you say.

My point is not that felons deserve unlimited firearm rights. My point is that the organs of government are capable of nuanced application of law that does not require blanket bans. You challenged this. I've just demonstrated why such bans are not readily applicable. Let's not confuse the issue at hand to gain a rhetorical advantage.

I challenged you to provide an example of the special circumstances. You did. And I suppose there are others. I proposed a general rule, now I admit there should be exceptions. I'm struck by any lack of argument about the general rule: do we agree that some some violent felons should not have legal access to firearms, and carrying a firearm (not just picking one up in an emergency) would be a breach of their conditions?

I've never argued that the state ought not restrict the rights of certain people from owning firearms where they are proven to be an unreasonable threat to others. I am not an absolutist. I think perhaps that you are frustrated by people's response to your tone. From my perspective, I've been quite polite. Perhaps you should take a break?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I've never argued that the state ought not restrict the rights of certain people from owning firearms where they are proven to be an unreasonable threat to others. I am not an absolutist. I think perhaps that you are frustrated by people's response to your tone. From my perspective, I've been quite polite. Perhaps you should take a break?

I must have missed a shift in the internet tide, when being patronizing became more offensive than slights on a person's intelligence. No thanks, I'm bearing up fine.

[Grinning Dragon]

Nah, no guns in houses. It is dangerous if the people have lots of guns. More guns for law enforcement

OH, OK.

[Kernen]

I've never argued that the state ought not restrict the rights of certain people from owning firearms where they are proven to be an unreasonable threat to others. I am not an absolutist. I think perhaps that you are frustrated by people's response to your tone. From my perspective, I've been quite polite. Perhaps you should take a break?

I must have missed a shift in the internet tide, when being patronizing became more offensive than slights on a person's intelligence. No thanks, I'm bearing up fine.

Glad to hear that you've been updated and are handling this well. It's never fun to be out of the loop.

At any rate, I've never made such an argument.

[Galloism]

Anyone who favors the former option of allowing one to be victimized in that manner... I can't even begin to comprehend that stance.

Then you're glossing over what the girl did after arming herself and before killing a man.

I'm actually not. I do think she should be charged for the crimes she committed, but not charged for crimes committed by other people against her.

Namely, underage carriage of a firearm is an offense, and a handgun is also a federal offense. These charges should stick.

The fact she used said illegal firearm to stop a rapist however should not be a crime in of itself.

I haven't looked the case up because I have a nasty feeling she was aided, or given her age, set up, to commit a premeditated murder, and the jury let her walk. Why should I stick my head in that bucket of shit, just because Galloism says it's such good shit?

Actually, it hasn't been tried yet. She's out on bail which was reduced from 1 million to 400,000 after some significant Black Lives Matter activism and some celebrity assistance to her case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrystul_Kizer_case

Like Kyle, doing something no sane person would do unarmed, a death coming from their gun, then apparently "it's not felony murder" even if carrying the weapon was a felony. For no other reason than stopping people deliberately walking into trouble and someone getting killed, the girl should be held responsible for her actions in illegally carrying and she can choose rape or 2 to 5 years in prison. Probably a lot less due to age, but I can't do anything about that.

And again, if she had chosen to be raped, she would still be guilty of the illegal carriage. You should be guilty of crimes you committed, not crimes committed against you.

Also, do you really support children carrying guns in the city? You think that should be legal, no license required?

I'm not a fan, no. I just don't think it's murder if someone tries to kill them or rape them and they defend themselves with the weapon they have on hand at the time.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

It's a pretty terrible crime, against a terrible criminal. 17 isn't that young, but considering a year of drug use (which I'm considered because not being a minor it's not voluntary, and addictive drugs are a given) and psychological coercion, also that to reliably escape from the man she would likely have had to move to another city, if not another State ... there's clearly diminished responsibility. It really shits me that there's no in-between, but maybe the prosecutor will offer a lesser charge on some grounds I can't imagine.

There should still be some penalty for her going to the guy's house with the intention of shooting him and actually shooting him. The intent and the outcome don't really permit much credence to claims she might make about what happened between those.

Ironically there were probably cameras all over the house. She could even have suggested a bit of consensual sex with the cameras on, then changed her mind and when he tried to rape her, shot him. I guess neither of these occurred to her, pushed aside by the plan to set fire to the house and destroy as many of the porn videos of her as there were. It doesn't say how extensive the fire damage was.

A 17 year old in a screwed up state of mind shouldn't be expected to consider that link in the chain. But 17 year olds shouldn't murder people either. Minimum sentences are just a dreadful idea.

[Galloism]

It's a pretty terrible crime, against a terrible criminal. 17 isn't that young, but considering a year of drug use (which I'm considered because not being a minor it's not voluntary, and addictive drugs are a given) and psychological coercion, also that to reliably escape from the man she would likely have had to move to another city, if not another State ... there's clearly diminished responsibility. It really shits me that there's no in-between, but maybe the prosecutor will offer a lesser charge on some grounds I can't imagine.

There should still be some penalty for her going to the guy's house with the intention of shooting him and actually shooting him. The intent and the outcome don't really permit much credence to claims she might make about what happened between those.

Notably, you're assuming an intention that, while the prosecution argues is true, is still up for debate. I haven't seen the prosecution's case, so maybe they have a facebook post that says "i'm gonna cap his ass" or a witness who says she went over there angry or something that indicates intent, but right now we don't really have proof of such intent.

Obviously, if they have proof of intent, it makes this just straight up murder.

Ironically there were probably cameras all over the house. She could even have suggested a bit of consensual sex with the cameras on, then changed her mind and when he tried to rape her, shot him. I guess neither of these occurred to her, pushed aside by the plan to set fire to the house and destroy as many of the porn videos of her as there were. It doesn't say how extensive the fire damage was.

A 17 year old in a screwed up state of mind shouldn't be expected to consider that link in the chain. But 17 year olds shouldn't murder people either. Minimum sentences are just a dreadful idea.

Naturally, burning the house down does undermine her case. And perhaps she did have that intent, in which case murder is the appropriate charge.

But, if we assume no such intent (as she alleges), then what? She went over there with no intent, was attacked, and defended herself with the weapon she had on hand which just so happened to be illegal.

[Saiwania]

No, blackmail is payment not to tell. They still have the information. They are vulnerable if their "information" is the only case against you but usually that isn't so: investigators can use their information to find more that will stand alone despite theirs being tainted. Don't do crimes, and you won't have to worry about blackmailers.

You don't have to break the law to be vulnerable to blackmail. Just as often, it is just information people don't want to become public knowledge or they don't want something negative to happen. Assuming someone did break the law, even if it becomes known it isn't a given that any sanction will be enforced against them. It depends on what it is and to what extent it can be dismissed as a lie or just lacking evidence, if not another technicality. There are plenty of laws that don't get enforced as much as other laws.

[Velosia]

I will never understand the American obsession with firearms. You guys laugh at us when UK police post pictures on social media of 'dangerous' butter knives confiscated from 'armed criminals', but I'd rather live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with items that are used for chopping up carrots than one that fires pointy metal projectiles at nearly twice the speed of sound.

[Kernen]

I will never understand the American obsession with firearms. You guys laugh at us when UK police post pictures on social media of 'dangerous' butter knives confiscated from 'armed criminals', but I'd rather live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with items that are used for chopping up carrots than one that fires pointy metal projectiles at nearly twice the speed of sound.

Sounds fair. We'll enjoy our range time over here. You go do whatever you do over there.

[Adamede]

Nah, no guns in houses. It is dangerous if the people have lots of guns. More guns for law enforcements

Because no law enforcement agency has ever done anything bad ever.

[Greater Cesnica]

I will never understand the American obsession with firearms. You guys laugh at us when UK police post pictures on social media of 'dangerous' butter knives confiscated from 'armed criminals', but I'd rather live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with items that are used for chopping up carrots than one that fires pointy metal projectiles at nearly twice the speed of sound.

You live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with firearms. They don't give a shit, they'll get them where they can.

[Velosia]

You live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with firearms. They don't give a shit, they'll get them where they can.

But they're very much the exception. In America, even the pettiest of petty criminals are armed. Over here, your average criminal will be armed with nothing more dangerous than a large kitchen knife from B&Q.

Also, it's not like these criminals have an easier time than they would in the US. All British police services have armed response units and trained firearms officers.

[Greater Cesnica]

You live in a society where the worst criminals are armed with firearms. They don't give a shit, they'll get them where they can.

But they're very much the exception. In America, even the pettiest of petty criminals are armed. Over here, your average criminal will be armed with nothing more dangerous than a large kitchen knife from B&Q.

Also, it's not like these criminals have an easier time than they would in the US. All British police services have armed response units and trained firearms officers.

And yet the United Kingdom's homicide rate is more than double that of Switzerland, double that of the Czech Republic, and nearly double that of Italy and Austria; all countries with much less restrictive gun laws. What gives? Furthermore, why is it that in Northern Ireland citizens are permitted to carry guns for self-defense purposes and have no magazine limitations for rifles and pistols by default; yet Northern Ireland has a 25% lower homicide rate? If easier access to firearms meant a higher homicide rate, surely such places would be significantly more dangerous than the United Kingdom overall, right?

[Tobleste]

You're all being foolish. I would not trust most people to use gun correctly (myself included), even when trained.

Swords on the other hand...

Swords are for wimps. Claymores are were it's at.