Texting, then assulting ex cop, during movie equals death.

[Third Reign]

I guess I'll say at again because your argumentation, whilst correct, keeps following the same pattern:

Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.

Why are you so hung up on the fact that each state should be viewed as a "single country"? I'm fully aware that each state has its own governing body. But to my knowledge, many of the states have similar gun policies and similar issues could arise in other states. As such I refrain from listing every single state by name and refer to them by what their country is called: United States of America. To me a sub-group is still a member of the group. The EU is not the formal representative of Germany in international views, the USA, however, is the international representative of Florida. On this international view, gun laws within the USA (do you like that formulation better) are more lenient than Germany.

I can say a gun is a tool that converts a radial to a linear force. I can say an electrical chair is a resistor in a circuit. But that's just being naive. That surely is not the intention they are made for. Can I use either responsibly without their intended use? You bet I can, but it doesn't change the purpose of the device.

What if the fist fight was with a MMA fighter or Andre the Giant?

Why do you pull my statement on something that we obviously agree on into the ridiculous? Just for the effect of belittling my statement? Would the guy even be in a fistfight with a obviously stronger person if he did not have a gun on him, or would he avoid getting into such a situation? I don't need to have the strength of an MMA fighter to bash into a head with lethal results. Just because I "could" kill with a punch, is the use of weapons with lethal intend justified and not excessive?

 

[Famine]

I guess I'll say at again because your argumentation, whilst correct, keeps following the same pattern.

I don't know why you keep suggesting it's better to be vague and wrong (and appear ignorant) than accurate and correct.

Why are you so hung up on the fact that each state should be viewed as a "single country"?

It's because it's important.

I'm fully aware that each state has its own governing body. But to my knowledge, many of the states have similar gun policies and similar issues could arise in other states.

Then you may wish to upgrade your knowledge.

There's such a wide variety of State gun law legislation that it's probably impossible to find two states with the same rules. Alongside whether they issue licences (No Issue, Issue), there's how they do so (Shall Issue, May Issue), what licences they issue (Concealed Carry, Open Carry), type of gun they issue licences for (Handgun, Long Gun, Shotgun, Assault Weapon), how you may transport them and keep them in the home and even the ammunition capacity is legislated. Any firearm-owning American who's moved interstate will probably tell you the lengths they've had to go to in order to find out if they can even keep their gun...

As such I refrain from listing every single state by name and refer to them by what their country is called: United States of America. To me a sub-group is still a member of the group. The EU is not the formal representative of Germany in international views, the USA, however, is the international representative of Florida.

The United States of America only represents each State on the issues the States permit it to - this is limited by the US Constitution. The USA cannot, for example, sign up to an international disarmament treaty and force the States to require their citizens to be disarmed.

The European Commission also represents its member states on an international level on issues the states permit it to. It has a constitution too that gives it these powers. And a federal President, though we don't bother electing them.

Both are international bodies representing member states according to the limitations of their constitution. On the issue of gun control, the USA does not have the power to regulate what the states do and so the gun laws of the USA are irrelevant.

On this international view, gun laws within the USA (do you like that formulation better) are more lenient than Germany.

Sure, but it's not really relevant to anything.

As I said before, it's like suggesting that European sex laws are to blame when someone has sex, legally, with a 13 year old child in Spain. The reality is that the EU has nothing to do with individual states' age of consent laws, because that's not a power granted to it by the member states - and in other states, having sex with a 13 year old child would be a crime because the states aren't required to recognise each others' sex laws. In other states of the USA, Mr. Reeves would not have been permitted to own that (or any) weapon because they're not required to recognise Florida's gun laws.

I can say a gun is a tool that converts a radial to a linear force. I can say an electrical chair is a resistor in a circuit. But that's just being naive. That surely is not the intention they are made for. Can I use either responsibly without their intended use? You bet I can, but it doesn't change the purpose of the device.

To suggest that a gun's purpose is to shoot someone is to suggest that anyone who's ever used a gun to shoot a target or an animal - or never shoot at all - has misused the gun.

The intention of a gun is as a remote force multiplier tool. It's a hammer that acts "over there". The force it generates is so great that it can be used against a person - but so can a hammer - if required and multiple law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job. It's also so precise that multiple international law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job too, despite much bigger force multipliers being available.

The purpose of a gun is not to put a bullet into a person.

Why do you pull my statement on something that we obviously agree on into the ridiculous?

It should be patently obvious that we don't agree on it.

Just for the effect of belittling my statement? Would the guy even be in a fistfight with a obviously stronger person if he did not have a gun on him, or would he avoid getting into such a situation?

Apparently in Europe when we disagree we have a fist fight and no-one ends up dead in hospital. That rather suggests that a lot of fist fights occur. Do all such fist fights occur between perfectly matched opponents?

A fist fight is a display of force. If one opponent has greater knowledge (MMA fighter) or greater strength, reach or other physical attributes (Andre the Giant), the fight is not balanced. Now give them both a gun. Is the fight balanced? What if it's three guys against one old guy? Balanced fight? What happens when the old guy has a gun? I doubt he'd be killed quite so readily.

Guns are levelling tools too. They equalise the amount of force each opponent has to give. And, unlike a fist fight, each opponent knows that using that force means pretty severe consequences - a last resort. This is why, in the USA, people who are not capable of understanding that are not permitted access to firearms.

I don't need to have the strength of an MMA fighter to bash into a head with lethal results. Just because I "could" kill with a punch, is the use of weapons with lethal intend justified and not excessive?

Yes.

Lethal force is always justified if you are in genuine fear for your life. If I upset a cage fighter over the small matter of a spilled drink (not that this EVER happens in Europe, you understand) and he comes at me in such a fashion that I'm in fear for my life - because I'm not a cage fighter - I may defend myself with appropriate force, and appropriate force in an heavily unbalanced fight with a slightly overweight mid-30s bag of creakiness against an incredibly angry mixed martial artist who weighs more than my car is all the force I can manage.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I guess I'll say at again because your argumentation, whilst correct, keeps following the same pattern:



Why are you so hung up on the fact that each state should be viewed as a "single country"? I'm fully aware that each state has its own governing body. But to my knowledge, many of the states have similar gun policies and similar issues could arise in other states. As such I refrain from listing every single state by name and refer to them by what their country is called: United States of America. To me a sub-group is still a member of the group. The EU is not the formal representative of Germany in international views, the USA, however, is the international representative of Florida. On this international view, gun laws within the USA (do you like that formulation better) are more lenient than Germany.

Protip: why not take a U.S. civics class at a Uni there or read up between post and see why they aren't viewed as a single country.

I don't ask that your government operate in a certain way and I find it somewhat offensive that you'd make a generalization as you've done, we have a constitution with a map of how the nation is to operate and I and many Americans respect that operation and if something is wrong we vote and promote state laws to fix it, that is how local gov't works here. Obviously you're not aware, but perhaps you can tell me the differences between handgun ownership in Maryland comapared to Nevada or Ohio or Idaho? Better yet could you tell me the differences between AR-15 ownership between Arizona and California and the subsequent break down? Or may you can inform us of if I need a CCW in my state or not, and if I do have one for my state what others accept it fully? Not as many states as you think have a Stand Your Ground law or similar gun enforcement laws. Just like you have to be aware of your laws regarding your stick, I have to be so ten fold due to each state having a different understanding of my and others gun ownership in respect to their state.

I can say a gun is a tool that converts a radial to a linear force. I can say an electrical chair is a resistor in a circuit. But that's just being naive. That surely is not the intention they are made for. Can I use either responsibly without their intended use? You bet I can, but it doesn't change the purpose of the device.

And this trite has been rebuked and simplified for you..

 

[Rich S]

Shot because he threw a bag of popcorn. Not anything dangerous but a bag of popcorn. Slight overreaction.

I'm not sure what will happen in this case, as it depends on what the shooter was hit in the head with along with other factor... It sounds like a bag of popcorn was thrown or used in some way? Anyways I think there needs to be a present, apparent ability to cause harm for the self defense to work, it sounds like the victim's wife placed her arm in front of the victim which makes it tougher to argue for imminent harm, especially when the shooter in the altercation (although 70 years old) is 270 lb and 6-1. Not to mention he has a gun.

To me it sounds like this shooter guy is older, may have started to get a bit "dingy" (and this is my opinion not stated as absolute fact) and indeed could be a threat to public safety. Violence in senior care does happen.... I'm not saying that old people tend to be violent (most aren't!) but it can happen.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/17/old-and-dangerous/

 

[Third Reign]

I don't know why you keep suggesting it's better to be vague and wrong (and appear ignorant) than accurate and correct.

Let Mr Feynman explain you the concept of what sufficient vagueness is for. If I'm more specific than you, are you now wrong?

Then you may wish to upgrade your knowledge.

There's such a wide variety of State gun law legislation that it's probably impossible to find two states with the same rules. Alongside whether they issue licences (No Issue, Issue), there's how they do so (Shall Issue, May Issue), what licences they issue (Concealed Carry, Open Carry), type of gun they issue licences for (Handgun, Long Gun, Shotgun, Assault Weapon), how you may transport them and keep them in the home and even the ammunition capacity is legislated. Any firearm-owning American who's moved interstate will probably tell you the lengths they've had to go to in order to find out if they can even keep their gun...

Try to point me to where I said two states have the same gun laws? I believe the word I used is "similar", but that's probably too vague for you, so I must be wrong. Sure I can beat through 5000 pages on gun laws for each state, or I could go for the more vague but also correct summary found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state @LMSCorvetteGT2 there you can also get your inquiry, thanks for asking me to do it for you...

In other states of the USA, Mr. Reeves would not have been permitted to own that (or any) weapon because they're not required to recognise Florida's gun laws.To suggest that a gun's purpose is to shoot someone is to suggest that anyone who's ever used a gun to shoot a target or an animal - or never shoot at all - has misused the gun.

Now if Florida had the same gun policy as the state you refer to, that man would not have died to a gun shot. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Would he have beaten the guy to death the entire situation changes. Before beaten to death, there is a phase where the victim is incapable of retaliation, going past that is is past the need for self defense and brings up an entire different part of law.

Isn't shooting at targets just practice to be more adept in the case of really having to use the firearm? Sport shooting also only exists because people want to compare how good they are at using the firearm, they use targets because they don't want to get 1000 Bambies to shoot at each event.

The intention of a gun is as a remote force multiplier tool. It's a hammer that acts "over there". The force it generates is so great that it can be used against a person - but so can a hammer - if required and multiple law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job. It's also so precise that multiple international law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job too, despite much bigger force multipliers being available.

The purpose of a gun is not to put a bullet into a person.

If you try to tell me that the Chinese did not invent the firearm for warfare purposes, then please enlighten me on the origin of a gun. Hunting is "putting a bullet through something to end its life". I'm not saying that hunting for food purposes is bad either here...

It should be patently obvious that we don't agree on it.Apparently in Europe when we disagree we have a fist fight and no-one ends up dead in hospital. That rather suggests that a lot of fist fights occur. Do all such fist fights occur between perfectly matched opponents?

A fist fight is a display of force. If one opponent has greater knowledge (MMA fighter) or greater strength, reach or other physical attributes (Andre the Giant), the fight is not balanced. Now give them both a gun. Is the fight balanced? What if it's three guys against one old guy? Balanced fight? What happens when the old guy has a gun? I doubt he'd be killed quite so readily.

I doubt any sane attacker would attack something he has no chance of beating. I for example will never attack a boxer, they will most likely knock me out on the spot. Fight resolved. If said boxer continues to beat me to death we are on a entirely different situation. He went past his need for defense the moment i was knocked out. This is where a new crime starts. I dont have any statistics supporting this, but I think common sense would dictate that gun based incidents have a significantly higher death rate that manual assaults. Lets play a "what if" with the liked article. 1) Guy is out numbered, cannot defend himself, and is beaten to death. 2) Now guy has a gun and is very adept at using it, pulls it on the three and kills them in the process. 3 dead bodies. 3) Guy has gun and knows how to pull a trigger, hits one, the other two flee, 1 dead body. There is no way that all three of these cases will be tried in the same way.

Just because I "could" kill with a punch, is the use of weapons with lethal intend justified and not excessive?
Yes.

And that is where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion, you don't seem to respect mine much.

Lethal force is always justified if you are in genuine fear for your life. If I upset a cage fighter over the small matter of a spilled drink (not that this EVER happens in Europe, you understand) and he comes at me in such a fashion that I'm in fear for my life - because I'm not a cage fighter - I may defend myself with appropriate force, and appropriate force in an heavily unbalanced fight with a slightly overweight mid-30s bag of creakiness against an incredibly angry mixed martial artist who weighs more than my car is all the force I can manage.

If a simple punch to the face puts you in fear of your life...You are using the other extreme I am talking off, way to talk past one another. And again you're putting words in my mouth I did not say. I don't understand why you formulate everything in absolutes, why do you even get into the situation where you anger a MMA fighter so far that he beats you to pulp? Prevention is also a form of defense. It's this whole "I must answer violence with harsher violence" aspect that I don't agree with. A angry MMA fighter can still be tasered, I assume that would always be a more suitable defense than killing him through a gun shot.
Don't worry, I have experienced the look of someone coming at me with intent to harm. I was down on strength, but know how to defend (I do Jiu-Jitsu). I fixated the guy on the ground, called the security, and the guy got charged with assault. All he suffered was some pain. If I would have gone as far as going past a simple arm lock and went ahead and broke the guy's arm, charges for assault would have been on me (lesser degree than his assault). I don't know what I would have faced if I shot (leathal or not) at the guy instead.

Here is my offer, I see and understand the point you are trying to make and once I see my life in danger I will use everything in my power to save it. A simple "I see and understand your point" from you could end the discussion on the spot. If you don't understand my point, instead of ridiculing it, try to inquire why i see it so.

 

[Zenith]

Isn't shooting at targets just practice to be more adept in the case of really having to use the firearm? Sport shooting also only exists because people want to compare how good they are at using the firearm, they use targets because they don't want to get 1000 Bambies to shoot at each event.

It's a sport.

Do people play golf to practice to be more adept for the times in their life when they will have to use a long metal rod to sink a specifically sized and weighted ball into a hole?

Do people race cars to practice to be more adept for all of the times they'll be late to an event that is on the other side of race track style roads and the only means of transport is a prepped race car?

Do people play soccer to be more adept with their legs in case they lose their arms and work in a spherical package sorting company?

Why do I need to explain that I'm not shooting guns because I hunger for the blood of the next man to wrong me? Why is fun so difficult to explain to people?

If you try to tell me that the Chinese did not invent the firearm for warfare purposes, then please enlighten me on the origin of a gun. Hunting is "putting a bullet through something to end its life". I'm not saying that hunting for food purposes is bad either here...

The origin of the car was a form of transportation around town. Does that mean that the purpose of a Formula 1 car is to transport me around town?

Don't worry, I have experienced the look of someone coming at me with intent to harm. I was down on strength, but know how to defend (I do Jiu-Jitsu). I fixated the guy on the ground, called the security, and the guy got charged with assault. All he suffered was some pain. If I would have gone as far as going past a simple arm lock and went ahead and broke the guy's arm, charges for assault would have been on me (lesser degree than his assault). I don't know what I would have faced if I shot (leathal or not) at the guy instead.

Great. I know many people who are extremely good in martial arts and hand to hand combat. Many of them carry guns and the ones that don't would run away from a fight rather than risk getting into one considering there are no rules against biting and eye-gouging, nor security people to call, nor the guarantee that the aggressor is alone in real life. Assuming your story is true, it is an exception, not the rule. Most muggings, assaults, rapes, will have multiple assailants often with knives or similar weapons, something even a well trained and physically capable fighter cannot reliably counter.

Now what if you're not as able bodied as your attacker? What if you're a woman? What if there are multiple people? When Famine referred to guns as a leveling tool, these are good examples. Should a woman simply allow the aggressor(s) to reach life-endangering levels of violence against her before she uses her weapon?

 

[Famine]

Let Mr Feynman explain you the concept of what sufficient vagueness is for. If I'm more specific than you, are you now wrong?

Irrelevant - and I already covered it when I mentioned local ordinances before you even posted in the thread.

Now answer the question. Why is being specific and correct worse than being vague and wrong - and appearing ignorant as a result?

Try to point me to where I said two states have the same gun laws? I believe the word I used is "similar", but that's probably too vague for you, so I must be wrong.

Define "similar". If similar is "can have gun", yes, lots of states have "similar" gun laws - and they're similar to all of Europe's gun laws too. If similar is "requires licence to open carry handgun" then no, not many states have the same gun laws.

Sure I can beat through 5000 pages on gun laws for each state, or I could go for the more vague but also correct summary found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state @LMSCorvetteGT2 there you can also get your inquiry, thanks for asking me to do it for you...

I didn't ask you to do anything, nor did I enquire about anything from you.

Now if Florida had the same gun policy

Same or similar? I'm confused now.

as the state you refer to, that man would not have died to a gun shot. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

That's not even a point - and I don't know what State you say I refer to.

Even then it was made long before you joined the thread too. Fewer [item], fewer instances of [item] used. Gosh.

Would he have beaten the guy to death the entire situation changes. Before beaten to death, there is a phase where the victim is incapable of retaliation, going past that is is past the need for self defense and brings up an entire different part of law.

No-one's ever been killed after one lucky/deliberate punch, eh?

Isn't shooting at targets just practice to be more adept in the case of really having to use the firearm?

Yes, in much the same way squash is just practice in case you really have to smash a rubber ball at someone.

Sport shooting also only exists because people want to compare how good they are at using the firearm, they use targets because they don't want to get 1000 Bambies to shoot at each event.

What, don't people just get pleasure from doing an activity any more?

I play Gran Turismo because it's fun for me. I'm not trying to compare myself to anyone or prepare for the time I have to defend myself for real with a car on a screen. It's just fun.

People shoot guns at targets because it's fun for them. They're not trying to compare themselves to anyone or prepare for the time they have to defend themselves for real with a gun. It's just fun.

If you try to tell me that the Chinese did not invent the firearm for warfare purposes, then please enlighten me on the origin of a gun.

The Americans (well, the Germans really) invented the moderated nuclear chain reaction for warfare. That doesn't mean nuclear reactors for power generation are a misuse of uranium.

Go buy a gun. Lock it away and never load it. Are you misusing that firearm?

Hunting is "putting a bullet through something to end its life".

Oh I'm quite sure. But then you've just answered your own earlier question:

Tell me one purpose of a gun that does not include blasting a bullet through someone?

I doubt any sane attacker would attack something he has no chance of beating.

Kay. What about people who aren't sane? What about people who are drunk or on drugs?

Lets play a "what if" with the liked article. 1) Guy is out numbered, cannot defend himself, and is beaten to death. 2) Now guy has a gun and is very adept at using it, pulls it on the three and kills them in the process. 3 dead bodies. 3) Guy has gun and knows how to pull a trigger, hits one, the other two flee, 1 dead body. There is no way that all three of these cases will be tried in the same way.

Great. You missed the point.

Three guys beat a guy to death for no reason. This was a grossly unbalanced fight, despite no weapons being involved, and the old guy had no chance. The balance of force was with the stronger aggressors. Give the old guy a tool to increase his force and he has a chance. Give him a gun and the aggressors either think twice or attack anyway and we see a different outcome.

Weapons equalise force so that physicality no longer applies.

And that is where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion, you don't seem to respect mine much.

I don't respect anyone who says I should die at the hands of an overwhelmingly more powerful aggressor rather than preserve my own life.

If a simple punch to the face puts you in fear of your life...

A punch to the face can kill or disable you. No-one should ever think that's an acceptable course of action - but some people do and people who are weaker than them should not live in fear of them.

You are using the other extreme I am talking off, way to talk past one another. And again you're putting words in my mouth I did not say. I don't understand why you formulate everything in absolutes, why do you even get into the situation where you anger a MMA fighter so far that he beats you to pulp?

I'm sorry, have you not been paying any attention? This entire thread is about someone who got so angry with someone else over something apparently completely minor that they killed them and I've linked you to several news stories where people have got so angry with someone else that they've stabbed or beaten them to death.

These are all examples of someone with an overwhelming force advantage (gun, knife, strength of numbers) killing someone else for little to no reason (popcorn throwing, a drink, asking them to put their glass on the bar when they're done). It happens. It happens a lot, regardless of the weaponry involved - and at broadly equal rates in the USA and Europe. It's not even a bizarre hypothetical that I could inadvertently anger someone much stronger than me to the point where they try to kill me - it's exactly what happened in every single one of those stories.

Prevention is also a form of defense. It's this whole "I must answer violence with harsher violence" aspect that I don't agree with. A angry MMA fighter can still be tasered, I assume that would always be a more suitable defense than killing him through a gun shot.

Sure, let me whip out my taser... oh wait, they're illegal in the UK too.

Here is my offer, I see and understand the point you are trying to make and once I see my life in danger I will use everything in my power to save it. A simple "I see and understand your point" from you could end the discussion on the spot. If you don't understand my point, instead of ridiculing it, try to inquire why i see it so.

I neither see nor understand any viewpoint that insists guns must be used to kill people and that innocent people must not be allowed any defence against violent aggressors who threaten their lives. No reasonable person should hold those views - much less someone who says they have trained in self-defence techniques and employed them.

If you want me to, you're bang out of luck.

 

[Third Reign]

You guys are not even trying and just go for straight confrontation.

Why is being specific and correct worse than being vague and wrong - and appearing ignorant as a result?
Good to know that only the combination "vague and wrong" seems to exist for you. You can also be specific and wrong as well as vague and still correct. Sure it is better to be specific and correct, but what good is it if you engage in a conversational field that does not have the specific knowledge to engage in that level. It's why I gave you the quote twice and that video to think about it. If you come with the argument along the lines "keep quiet if you don't know everything about the matter" I'll accuse you of extreme arrogance.

I'm all for the right to defend yourself. As I said, I made use of it myself. The whole story goes like this: I chat up a girl, boyfriend who wasn't around when i first talked to her doesn't like it and gives me a punch. I got a bloody lip and on his next swing I got him off balance (quite simple on a intoxicated person) fixated him with an arm lock and waited for club security to show up. Why am I supposed to assume in this situation that the guy is after my life? I obviously angered him. If I go: he could kill me with his next punch, let me kill him just in case. Do you not see how ludicrous that sounds? There is a difference between a brawl in a bar and Charles Manson out for some "fun".

I never said guns have to be used to kill. I said guns are tools that where built to harm/kill. If I'm into sportive shooting, why do I need to carry my gun around in public, ready to discharge? I can have it locked up at the shooting stand and use it there when I want to shoot at the range. In this case we are talking about sane users of weapons in a controlled environment. This part of the law is quite well defined. You have pointed that out a fair amount of times. How does this case have relevance to gangsters running around with guns?

I'm trying to point out moderation plays a huge role in the case of defense. If you are paranoid and think only of the apocalyptic case where everyone is out for your life and live according to it, you live a sad life. This thread was about a guy that shot and killed another guy because he thought a bag of popcorn would kill him. I say he should have been able to solve this confrontation without the need of a gun discharge. You say guns level the playing field, I say they pull favor largely to the wielder of the gun and that is anything but "leveling".

How do you want to go about solving the issue with the mentally degenerate that don't give a rats ass about the welfare of others? Shoot them all? How are you prepared against an assault on your life while you sleep at home?

In my opinion it is not the right way to just arm everyone with a gun because someone could be out to kill me and gun restriction laws do reflect that. I voiced an opinion that some places do not have enough restriction. Some stuff I read here makes it out like you absolutely need a gun or otherwise you will never be safe.

I neither see nor understand any viewpoint that insists guns must be used to kill people and that innocent people must not be allowed any defence against violent aggressors who threaten their lives. No reasonable person should hold those views - much less someone who says they have trained in self-defence techniques and employed them.

Here you go again misinterpreting my point of view. I never said that I'm against people having a right to defend themselves. I'm not even against the use of lethal force IF THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT. I see that you obviously have a much lower tolerance until your right for lethal force switch flips. Lethal force is a last resort, you said so yourself. Having the gun tends to let people use it much earlier than "last result". So what if I employed self defense, the attacker threw a punch, connected once and all I did was to defend myself was throw him off balance and pin him to the ground until he was removed from the scene. I used less force than him, and believe me when I say he was stronger than me...I said each situation has a called for defense. Gunshot after popcorn throwing is not reasonable to me and turns into self-defense excess.

I see through your "argumentation style", all you do is attack attack attack, and while it may be factually backed, you completely misinterpret my statements. I can tell you that such ways will never resolve conflict...I threw you a bone and you went right ahead and ridiculed it some more.

All of this nonsense is just your "I like playing with guns" versus my "It think guns are not necessary"

 

[Zenith]

I'm all for the right to defend yourself. As I said, I made use of it myself. The whole story goes like this: I chat up a girl, boyfriend who wasn't around when i first talked to her doesn't like it and gives me a punch. I got a bloody lip and on his next swing I got him off balance (quite simple on a intoxicated person) fixated him with an arm lock and waited for club security to show up. Why am I supposed to assume in this situation that the guy is after my life? I obviously angered him. If I go: he could kill me with his next punch, let me kill him just in case. Do you not see how ludicrous that sounds? There is a difference between a brawl in a bar and Charles Manson out for some "fun".

Nobody asked you for the story. Famine even showed how it was irrelevant to this conversation and yet you still feel the need to tell us about it. Considering how many internet Neo's there are and how... cliche this fight story is, I am skeptical of your story. True or not, it is still utterly irrelevant because most defensive scenarios are absolutely nothing like this.

I never said guns have to be used to kill. I said guns are tools that where built to harm/kill.

I drive cars for fun. I can buy a car that I use for nothing but fun.

I also drive cars to get to work. I have cars that I use to get to work.

I own guns for fun. I have guns that I use for nothing but fun.

I also own guns for self defense because they are great tools for self defense. I have and may carry a gun for self defense.

You said that the guns are built to kill things. This is untrue. We are telling you that guns can be built and used for many things.

If I'm into sportive shooting, why do I need to carry my gun around in public, ready to discharge? I can have it locked up at the shooting stand and use it there when I want to shoot at the range. In this case we are talking about sane users of weapons in a controlled environment. This part of the law is quite well defined. You have pointed that out a fair amount of times. How does this case have relevance to gangsters running around with guns?

See above. My sports shooting guns and my defensive guns are not the same. I need my defensive gun at my house because I can't go to the range and get it if I need to defend myself in my house.

Also since when did gangsters start caring about when the law tells them to leave their guns at the gun range?

I'm trying to point out moderation plays a huge role in the case of defense. If you are paranoid and think only of the apocalyptic case where everyone is out for your life and live according to it, you live a sad life. This thread was about a guy that shot and killed another guy because he thought a bag of popcorn would kill him. I say he should have been able to solve this confrontation without the need of a gun discharge. You say guns level the playing field, I say they pull favor largely to the wielder of the gun and that is anything but "leveling".

The point of carrying a weapon of any kind is so that the user has the advantage a defensive scenario over somebody who has the element of surprise, first punch, strength in numbers, whatever. It is better to carry a weapon that is capable of lethal force and not having to use it than to carry a weapon that is incapable of lethal force and need the lethality that you don't have. There are no weapons that can exercise moderation in some cases and still be effect enough in some of the most common defensive scenarios, hence why people carry guns.

How do you want to go about solving the issue with the mentally degenerate that don't give a rats ass about the welfare of others? Shoot them all? How are you prepared against an assault on your life while you sleep at home?

Nobody said that.

In my opinion it is not the right way to just arm everyone with a gun because someone could be out to kill me and gun restriction laws do reflect that. I voiced an opinion that some places do not have enough restriction. Some stuff I read here makes it out like you absolutely need a gun or otherwise you will never be safe.

Nobody said any of that. You are fabricating an argument that has not been voiced in this thread.

All of this nonsense is just your "I like playing with guns" versus my "It think guns are not necessary"

Yes. All of Famine's points over the last two pages of this thread can be condensed into "I like playing with guns."

Are you stupid enough to believe what you wrote or do you think you can strawman your opposition that blatantly and we'll play along?

Either way, guns are necessary (and sometimes insufficient) if you want to be able to successfully defend yourself against most of the violent acts that people encounter. Jiu-Jitsu is a terrible tool for this job because it will not successfully defend the victim in most of the violent acts people encounter. These include multiple attackers, physically stronger attacker(s), attacker(s) with weapons, attacker(s) who catch the victim by surprise, and many other factors often combined. A gun is widely considered the best tool to deal with these threats. It is not capable of moderation, invent something that can and people might start using it.

 

[Famine]

Why is being specific and correct worse than being vague and wrong - and appearing ignorant as a result?
Good to know that only the combination "vague and wrong" seems to exist for you.

In the context of this discussion, it is the only one that's relevant. Blaming "US gun law" is vague and wrong, when the shooter was permitted to be armed under Florida gun laws.

You can also be specific and wrong as well as vague and still correct.

Yep. Not relevant though.

Sure it is better to be specific and correct, but what good is it if you engage in a conversational field that does not have the specific knowledge to engage in that level.

You'd think, after I furnished people who think "US gun law" is to blame with the complete factual summation of why "US gun law" is not to blame, that specific knowledge would have hit home by now.

It's why I gave you the quote twice and that video to think about it. If you come with the argument along the lines "keep quiet if you don't know everything about the matter" I'll accuse you of extreme arrogance.

If you cannot keep the discussion on the topic and instead wish to bandy around insults at the people discussing it, you do not belong here.

I'm all for the right to defend yourself.

Except if it's small, weak people in a fist fight and then it's their fault for getting themselves into the situation and they're not allowed to respond because they cannot respond proportionally.

Why am I supposed to assume in this situation that the guy is after my life?

No idea. Why?

I obviously angered him. If I go: he could kill me with his next punch, let me kill him just in case. Do you not see how ludicrous that sounds?

Apparently you cannot distinguish between the concepts of killing someone while being in genuine fear for your life and just killing any aggressor.

There is a difference between a brawl in a bar and Charles Manson out for some "fun".

Not if you're killed by either there isn't.

I never said guns have to be used to kill.

Good job no-one said you did.

I said guns are tools that where built to harm/kill.

And you're still wrong - or every single one of the responsible people that possess a firearm and never use it to harm, kill or even discharge a round are misusing their guns.

If I'm into sportive shooting, why do I need to carry my gun around in public, ready to discharge?

I'm into driving. Why do I need to drive my car around in public, ready to crash?

How does this case have relevance to gangsters running around with guns

No idea. How does it?

I'm trying to point out moderation plays a huge role in the case of defense. If you are paranoid and think only of the apocalyptic case where everyone is out for your life and live according to it, you live a sad life. This thread was about a guy that shot and killed another guy because he thought a bag of popcorn would kill him. I say he should have been able to solve this confrontation without the need of a gun discharge. You say guns level the playing field, I say they pull favor largely to the wielder of the gun and that is anything but "leveling".

Don't you remember? Anyone can get a gun under "US gun laws" (apparently). That's pretty level.

How do you want to go about solving the issue with the mentally degenerate that don't give a rats ass about the welfare of others? Shoot them all? How are you prepared against an assault on your life while you sleep at home?

What issue? Why are these questions even appearing here?

In my opinion it is not the right way to just arm everyone with a gun because someone could be out to kill me and gun restriction laws do reflect that. I voiced an opinion that some places do not have enough restriction. Some stuff I read here makes it out like you absolutely need a gun or otherwise you will never be safe.

No idea what you're reading then.

Here you go again misinterpreting my point of view. I never said that I'm against people having a right to defend themselves.

Then you should hold the view that if an innocent citizen wants to own a gun, they should have that choice.

I'm not even against the use of lethal force IF THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT.

Then you should hold the view that if an innocent citizen wants to own a gun, they should have that choice.

I see that you obviously have a much lower tolerance until your right for lethal force switch flips.

Nope. You've just imagined one because it suits you to do so.

Lethal force is a last resort, you said so yourself.

Nope. I said that someone willing to shoot to defend themselves knows it's a last resort.

Having the gun tends to let people use it much earlier than "last result".

The violent crime rate parity between disarmed Europe and gun-toting USA says you're wrong.

So what if I employed self defense, the attacker threw a punch, connected once and all I did was to defend myself was throw him off balance and pin him to the ground until he was removed from the scene. I used less force than him, and believe me when I say he was stronger than me...

Great. So what?

I said each situation has a called for defense. Gunshot after popcorn throwing is not reasonable to me and turns into self-defense excess.

Okay. I never argued that point anywhere, nor even mentioned it.

I see through your "argumentation style", all you do is attack attack attack, and while it may be factually backed, you completely misinterpret my statements. I can tell you that such ways will never resolve conflict...I threw you a bone and you went right ahead and ridiculed it some more.

Let's just remind ourselves that every point I've made so far I made before you came into the thread. You objected to some of them - though you've talked yourself round in big circles - so it rather seems you're the one on the attack.

Glad to see you're acknowledging that what I'm saying is factually-backed though. Guess that means we can dispense with the parts where I state facts and you object to them.

All of this nonsense is just your "I like playing with guns" versus my "It think guns are not necessary"

I'm from and live in the UK. Guns are even more banned here than they are in Germany. Tell me more about how I like playing with guns and how my factually-backed argument can be boiled down to preference.

 

[phonyk]

I think the comparison with fist fights has become a little bit distorted since they put the shooter into a position of having to defend himself with his fists. In this instance I would disagree with the analogy - the shooter was not responding to violence against himself, he was responding to an act of antagonism. He was escalating the situation, and the first one to use violence. The thing with guns is that the violence can be extremely immediate and impossible to stop; where a fistfight might plausibly be broken up by others in the theatre, once someone starts shooting I would imagine most people are simply concerned with staying alive.

Guns definitely are a leveller, but that does have the consequence of people acting violently who might not have done under the same circumstances; in this situation the gun carrier lost his temper in response to antagonism, and responded by drawing his weapon and firing. That same individual without the gun may arguably have been forced to weigh up the situation more carefully and perhaps wouldn't have resorted to violence even having lost his temper. Which is not to say that people are never killed in such a fashion, but I don't think you could credibly argue that the same situation would have an equal chance of the outcome being a dead person, regardless whether or not one of them was carrying a firearm. In this instance it seems likely that the presence of the firearm was a contributing factor to the severity of the outcome of the incident, and in that respect is an example of where a person lawfully carrying a firearm has facilitated an unlawful killing.

I don't believe the problem is necessarily that there is a problem with the gun laws in the various states, but rather one of mindset. A misconception that the right to own/carry a firearm automatically carries with it the entitlement to use that firearm on people who are behaving in a way you'd prefer them not to. The fact that there are people on this thread who apparently genuinely believe that shooting someone is an appropriate and justifiable response to someone throwing a paper bag at you, is a demonstration that this mindset does exist. I guess it could be summed up as 'might makes right'; "I own a gun, so if you do something which makes me want to shoot you, then that's your own fault". Of course, nothing justifies the cinema texter being a jerk in the first place, but I can't see how it ever reasonably justifies an escalation to violence.

I don't feel that throwing a paper bag at someone really falls under my definition of a violent act. I can't see that there is any real intent to cause harm to the target, rather simply to upset. Of course, it's easy to say that there are a million and one different ways in which a paper bag in the face could have harmful consequences, but again I don't think you could reasonably infer a harmful intent from those fairly far fetched possibilities. Otherwise if you were to argue along those lines, you could surely walk around gunning down anyone doing anything which may potentially cause you harm. Another point some have made is that human beings are rash and unpredictable, and the shooter could have thought that the throwing of the bag was simply the first part of an all-out assault. Possibly, but rather in my eyes the opposite is true; if anything this unfortunate incident demonstrates that you should be careful who you antagonise, because human beings are rash and unpredictable and there's always a chance that the person may react grossly disproportionately with violence. As seems to have happened here.

Of course, this is all conjecture based on the news pieces quoted here. None seem to say that the victim was doing anything more provocative than throwing popcorn. It's possible that it's misreported and that there was more to it than that. But I think it's more logical to simply take the facts as they're presented, than to insert speculative elements to support your own opinion on the use of firearms.

Ultimately I would say that the Second Amendment is there to protect citizens from the oppression of the establishment, rather than to empower people to enact lethal retribution against anti-social behaviour.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Third Reign I don't think you're understanding as can be clearly seen, I didn't ask you to look anything up for me, and for you to twist words just to save face is asinine. I asked questions of you that I already know because of my gained knowledge of gun laws due to ownership.

Also people who sport shoot don't use their race guns as their primary defense weapon but hey you are in control of this vast (made myself laugh) knowledge of guns, use and ownership especially in the U.S.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Don't you know LMSCorvette Europeans will ALWAYS know more about guns, use and ownership, we are just simple 'Mericans after all

 

[GTsail]

I don't feel that throwing a paper bag at someone really falls under my definition of a violent act. I can't see that there is any real intent to cause harm to the target, rather simply to upset. Of course, it's easy to say that there are a million and one different ways in which a paper bag in the face could have harmful consequences, but again I don't think you could reasonably infer a harmful intent from those fairly far fetched possibilities. Otherwise if you were to argue along those lines, you could surely walk around gunning down anyone doing anything which may potentially cause you harm. Another point some have made is that human beings are rash and unpredictable, and the shooter could have thought that the throwing of the bag was simply the first part of an all-out assault. Possibly, but rather in my eyes the opposite is true; if anything this unfortunate incident demonstrates that you should be careful who you antagonise, because human beings are rash and unpredictable and there's always a chance that the person may react grossly disproportionately with violence. As seems to have happened here.

I'm in agreement with this ^^^^^

I think that Reeves' claim of self-defense will fail.

Florida's "Justifiable Use of Force" laws allow deadly force, but it must be justified and reasonable.

a portion of Florida Chapter 776 says: "A person is justified in using deadly force"....(when)...."He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

I don't think that it is reasonable to infer that having popcorn (or gummy bears) thrown at you, places you in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Dotini]

I don't think that it is reasonable to infer that having popcorn (or gummy bears) thrown at you, places you in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

On the other hand, if YOU threw a bag of popcorn into the face of a stranger, it places YOU in immediate danger of great harm or death.

Moral of the story and true bottom line: If you lose your temper (self control), you are liable to lose a great deal more, even if only your reputation and self-respect.

Don't be reduced to a puddle of grease on the floor. Keep your cool and don't lose your temper.

 

[phonyk]

Keep your cool and don't lose your temper.

I would say this is especially true if you're carrying a gun

 

[Danoff]

I don't see why some nutjob shooting someone always results in people wanting to rob everyone of their freedom to own a gun. Does some nutjob stabbing someone result in everyone wanting to ban knives? Does some nutjob running someone over result in everyone wanting to ban cars? Does some nutjob hacking into a bank and stealing money result in people wanting to ban computers? Why is it that the response is always "let's get rid of guns"?

First of all, as has been shown countless times, whether or not people have access to guns doesn't seem to encourage or discourage them from committing crimes. People kill each other whether they have guns or not, and the really bad people don't care whether it's illegal to have a gun or not - they get one anyway.

Second of all, I've been nothing but responsible my entire life with my guns. I practice with them so that I am competent. I keep them clean. I keep them well protected. I've never shot anyone with one. And they are all in complete accordance with the law. So why should I be penalized when some nutjob does something stupid?

Third of all, having guns is really really nice. It means I don't have to learn martial arts or work out constantly so that I could defend myself in my own home if someone twice my size were to break in. It means my wife could defend herself at all against such an attacker (there are men for which no amount of training would really help her). It means I don't have to keep other weapons lying around the house - weapons that are harder to lock up and require a great deal more training to be competent with. It means I can responsibly be able to protect my family without having to devote my life to it. So why should that be taken away when some nutjob does something stupid?

I'm not the minority here. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible people who have never shot someone over an incident involving popcorn. I don't know why all of those people get thrown under the bus when someone does something dumb.

 

[Grayfox]

How long does it take to pull a concealed gun, undo the safety,, point it at someone,pull the hammer and shoot compared to punching them?
for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

 

[Imari]

How long does it take to pull a concealed gun, undo the safety,, point it at someone,pull the hammer and shoot compared to punching them?
for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

The thing is, a punch really only works within a range a little shorter than the length of your arm. A gun has more range, so you have more time. But I don't think it takes as long to unholster and fire a weapon as you might think, and unless you're a pro martial artist and have a deadly one inch punch, pulling your arm back for a decent swing at someone isn't exactly fast either.

Besides, you shouldn't be making a snap decision to pull your gun. You should be aware enough that the situation is evolving in such a manner that you might need to pull your gun, and position yourself accordingly.

 

[Azuremen]

How long does it take to pull a concealed gun, undo the safety,, point it at someone,pull the hammer and shoot compared to punching them?
for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

About as long as it takes to reach into a pocket and pull out a phone - a moment. Not sure if you actually understand how a safety works on a gun but many can be flicked with a finger or thumb while aiming.

 

[Dotini]

Does some nutjob stabbing someone result in everyone wanting to ban knives?

Carrying a knife with blade over 3.5" is considered a dangerous weapon, and I think is prohibited almost everywhere in the US.

Knife legislation is defined as the body of statutory law and/or case law promulgated or enacted by a government or other governing jurisdiction that prohibits, criminalizes, or restricts the otherwise legal manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, transport, and/or use of knives.[1]

The carrying of knives in public is forbidden or restricted by law in many countries. Exceptions may be made for hunting knives, pocket knives, and knives used for work-related purposes (chef's knives, etc.), depending upon the laws of a given jurisdiction. In turn, the carrying or possessing of certain type of knives perceived as deadly or offensive weapons such as automatic or switchblade knives or butterfly knives may be restricted or prohibited. Even where knives may be legally carried on the person generally, this right may not extend to all places and circumstances, and knives of any description may be prohibited at airports, schools, public buildings or courthouses, or at public events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

 

[Danoff]

@Dotini , that kinda misses my point. Where's all the "ban knives" discussion on gtplanet? I haven't found that thread.

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini , that kinda misses my point. Where's all the "ban knives" discussion on gtplanet? I haven't found that thread.

Is there a ban guns thread here? I haven't noticed it - maybe because I don't believe guns should be banned, and don't think they will be here in the US. Mainly, I wanted to emphasize to any who weren't already aware, that knives can be lethal with a 2" depth wound in the eye, throat or liver, and that there are fairly uniform carry rules to be aware of.

Safety first!

 

[Danoff]

Is there a ban guns thread here? I haven't noticed it - maybe because I don't believe guns should be banned, and don't think they will be here in the US. Mainly, I wanted to emphasize to any who weren't already aware, that knives can be lethal with a 2" depth wound in the eye, throat or liver, and that there are fairly uniform carry rules to be aware of.

Safety first!

That's twice you've dodged the point in a row. I suppose you weren't aware of any discussion in this thread about banning guns.

 

[a6m5]

I'm not the minority here. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible people who have never shot someone over an incident involving popcorn. I don't know why all of those people get thrown under the bus when someone does something dumb.

During crazy commute or traffic, how many times have you lost your temper & rammed that car that cut you off? Yeah, me neither. How about with a kitchen knife, or pocket knife? You cut anybody today? We are apparently different with guns though. I shoot guns to practice ending someone's life, and that is the sole purpose of "shooting". Exactly what was on my mind when I bought my .22LR rifle.

for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

It really depends. Some guns, you can just pull it out & start shooting. No external safety to flick, or anything. It's built right into the trigger.

 

[Imari]

...will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun...

I have no idea how the grammar nazi in me didn't notice this before, but the idea of covering a gun in a nice floral print is too good to pass up.

 

[Zenith]

How long does it take to pull a concealed gun, undo the safety,, point it at someone,pull the hammer and shoot compared to punching them?
for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

It takes about 1-2 seconds and can be done with one hand. Many guns don't have manually operated safeties either. Cops are notorious for their poor marksmanship and general gun handling.

 

[Grayfox]

I have no idea how the grammar nazi in me didn't notice this before, but the idea of covering a gun in a nice floral print is too good to pass up.

It's what happens when you rely on firefox's spell check.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Don't you know LMSCorvette Europeans will ALWAYS know more about guns, use and ownership, we are just simple 'Mericans after all

I see the point you are getting at here, but also consider the flip side. Guns are so engrained in your society, and the right to have one seems to have been drummed in with almost religious levels of determination - this simply doesn't exist here in the UK. As much as the typical Brit is unqualified to talk about gun ownership, I'd say the typical American simply cannot imagine what it's like to live in a society where gun ownership is pretty much illegal - and given this is a matter of perspective (I'm not claiming it as a matter of fact!), how much that can make Americans sound like gun-totin' nut jobs.

I'm pretty sure if guns were as legal and prevelant over here as they are over there, I would either be dead myself, or would have taken another human life by now - as it is now, neither is true, and I'm much more comfortable about that.

 

[Azuremen]

I see the point you are getting at here, but also consider the flip side. Guns are so engrained in your society, and the right to have one seems to have been drummed in with almost religious levels of determination - this simply doesn't exist here in the UK. As much as the typical Brit is unqualified to talk about gun ownership, I'd say the typical American simply cannot imagine what it's like to live in a society where gun ownership is pretty much illegal - and given this is a matter of perspective (I'm not claiming it as a matter of fact!), how much that can make Americans sound like gun-totin' nut jobs.

Did you see the bit I posted about how most Americans don't own guns? It is a pretty easy for many to not even think about gun ownership.

I'm pretty sure if guns were as legal and prevelant over here as they are over there, I would either be dead myself, or would have taken another human life by now - as it is now, neither is true, and I'm much more comfortable about that.

So what you're saying is most UK citizens are just blood thirsty and have no self control?