cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (09/20/83)
I just had to comment on the terrifying remarks I have repeated below: >>>=================== >>> I, for one, would feel a lot safer if the only handguns around were >>> in the hands of professional criminals. >>> >>> omsvax!dps >If you think about it for a few seconds or longer, you will see that >it is probably true. If the criminal is pretty sure you aren't going >to kill him with a gun, he is unlikely to use it as his first method >of defence. If he kills you, it will be from malice, not from fear. >Not only would all the shootings in murders of passion be eliminated, >but also so would most of those in the course of a crime. I, too, >would feel a lot safer if the only handguns outside of the police >and the armed forces were those owned ILLEGALLY by criminals. > >Martin Taylor Your statements are proof of the NEED for the NRA and their fight against people like you who think that only people who commit crimes should have guns! Are you two for real? Don't even think of asking me for my guns before you can assure me that no criminals have any. Why would you feel safer if people guilty of murder, rape, robbery, or assault had guns and I did not? If people break into my house they had better fear for their lives - because I would have the same fear because of them! Granted, many people who think they are protecting themselves with guns don't know the trigger from the muzzle but it sounds like you think it is my fault if someone breaks into my home or assaults me on the street and then shoots me because I fight back. VICTIMS DON'T COMMIT CRIMES - CRIMINALS DO. I feel that anyone who enters my home without my invitation has given up ALL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS - our judicial system has yet to take away the right for a person to take whatever measures necessary to stop an intruder. A sad commentary of the injustice in our society is the fact that legal and law enforcement people advise that citizens involved in a home shooting incident BE SURE TO KILL any intruder so that no lawsuits can be taken against the victim by the guilty! Otherwise, the robber is likely to sue you for injuries received while breaking into your own home! Carl Amport ihuxm!cwa PS. It is "defense", as in "self-defense", while "defence" is something "de cat" sits on in "de alley".
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) (09/21/83)
I, for one, can't quite agree with you. First, it is not true that you have the right to defend your home/property with any force. In many states, you may only legally respond with the minimum force for the situation. I.E. if you shoot a trespasser who has not shown the intent to kill or maim you, you can be tried and convicted of assualt. It has been done, and not in the distant past. Also, in addition to any criminals charges you have thrown at you, the person whom you shot may also sue you for civil damages and will likely win. (See the recent articles on the guy who shot the intruder on the foot and had to pay $75K to the guy he shot). Finally, I ask you - what property do you own that is worth the taking of a human life? Is your stereo or TV more valuable to you than someone elses life??? If it is, I know we have no common point from which to discuss this issue further. don stanwyck : 312-979-6667 : ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck : bell labs, naperville
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (09/21/83)
I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the value of human life. Thank you, but I am disappointed that it took so long.
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/22/83)
Regardless of what, if any, PROPERTY is worth expending a human life to defend, there are certain PRINCIPLES which have traditionally been so defended... Like being able to decide what type of individuals you don't want in your house under any circumstances - ? While my toaster oven may not be worth shooting someone for, STEALING my toaster oven may very well be an ACTIVITY worth shooting someone for. (For those who insist on latching up on trivia, I have never owned one anyway.) Try as I can, I am unable to understand how anyone can be so obsessed with the Precious Humanity of a criminal who has broken into someone's home to rob them.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/23/83)
=====================Your statements are proof of the NEED for the NRA and their fight against
people like you who think that only people who commit crimes should have
guns!
=======
Carl Amport ihuxm!cwa
PS. It is "defense", as in "self-defense", while "defence" is something
"de cat" sits on in "de alley".
=====================
You are commenting on two articles, one of them mine, and neither of
which suggested that people who commit crimes should be allowed guns.
Both articles said that if no-one was allowed guns except police and
the armed forces, then anyone with a gun would be, *de facto* a criminal.
Furthermore, the criminal with a gun would be less likely to use it
on *me* if he was pretty sure I did not have one. A scared thief is
a dangerous thief. Yes, we are for real, and I think we represent more
than half the people on this continent if I read the polls aright.
Martin Taylor
P.S. It is "defence" in all English-speaking countries except the USA.
"Defenze" would normally be the pronunciation of "defense".preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/27/83)
#R:tekid:-155500:uicsl:5400029:000:1686 uicsl!preece Sep 26 08:00:00 1983 While my toaster oven may not be worth shooting someone for, STEALING my toaster oven may very well be an ACTIVITY worth shooting someone for. (For those who insist on latching up on trivia, I have never owned one anyway.) ---------- Even if you support capital punishment, the theft of a toaster oven seems to be insufficient cause. I'd like to think we had gained in humanity and understanding since the Middle Ages. ---------- Try as I can, I am unable to understand how anyone can be so obsessed with the Precious Humanity of a criminal who has broken into someone's home to rob them. ---------- Try remembering that criminals are people, too. They may be inadequately socialized, they may have been twisted by their upbringing, they may just be genetically predisposed, but they're still people. They have families who love and depend on them. They have pets they love. In their spare time they may write Pulitzer-grade poetry or paint landscapes. In other words, despite this one aspect of their lives, they are otherwise similar in every way to any statistically random sample of the population. Don't think about that damned toaster-oven thief bleeding to death on your living room carpet, think of him as the father of a five-year old who goes to school with your kids. You have a right to defend your property and a stronger right to defend yourself, but your rights are limited to minimal force because society recognizes the other person's right to life and the acknowledges the age-old observation that every person's death diminishes us all (apologies to Donne, who could hardly have anticipated gender-free language). scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (09/27/83)
Quite a story, but try thinking of that toaster oven thief as the man who raped your nieghbor or your cousin or your niece ... Just an example that shows WHAT IFs can be made to fit any argument. Minimal force is a catchy phrase, but more realistic applications of this can be described as use of justifiable force. One only has to feel threatened enough to have felt the use of deadly force was necessary. ihuxm!cwa Carl W. Amport
esj@ihuxl.UUCP (09/27/83)
I think it might be worth considering how many *unarmed* people have been wiped out by criminals for no apparent reason, other than the thrill of slaughter. Does anyone have statistics on robbery victims who fought their assailant vs. those that didn't? Let's see some numbers if they're available. ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (09/28/83)
In response to davidl's toaster oven vs. a home intruder I certainly hope my son or daughter never intrude your home. They may make mistakes by stealing, but I don't think they deserve to die.
sullivan@cmcl2.UUCP (09/29/83)
#R:tekid:-155500:cmcl2:4900004:000:130 cmcl2!sullivan Sep 28 07:25:00 1983 What great pieces of literature are we talking about criminals writing? `In the Belly of the Beast' or `Cill [sic] My Landloard'? -- David Sullivan UUCP: ...!floyd!cmcl2!sullivan (212) 460-7287 ARPA: SULLIVAN@NYU
stephen@alberta (10/04/83)
...
While my toaster oven may not be worth shooting someone for, STEALING
my toaster oven may very well be an ACTIVITY worth shooting someone
for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dows this mean that you support Soviet actions RE KAL? Flying over
reserved airspace might (was?) considered by them to be worth the
200+ lives that they snuffed out...
Stephen Samuel
(alberta!stephen)renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/10/83)
#R:alberta:-49200:uiucdcs:9700071:000:673
uiucdcs!renner Oct 9 23:55:00 1983
/***** uiucdcs:net.general / alberta!stephen / 8:44 pm Oct 3, 1983 */
...
While my toaster oven may not be worth shooting someone for, STEALING
my toaster oven may very well be an ACTIVITY worth shooting someone
for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dows this mean that you support Soviet actions RE KAL? Flying over
reserved airspace might (was?) considered by them to be worth the
200+ lives that they snuffed out...
Stephen Samuel
(alberta!stephen)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, of course he doesn't. This question is silly.
Scott Renner
...pur-ee!uiucdcs!rennerjj@rabbit.UUCP (10/14/83)
No, of course he doesn't. This question is silly. ----------------------- That's just the point... The Soviets killed for the same reason as he said he was willing to kill but although he is willing to justify the act when HE does it, he isn't willing to justify the act when SOMEONE ELSE does it. If you can justify shooting the toaster stealer <on principle> then how can't you the soviet actions in a similar situation? Stephen Samuel (alberta!stephen) I guess that some people don't see any difference between a person who entered a home for the express purpose of committing a crime, and of people who were UNWITTING passengers on a jet that may or may not have been off course deliberately. It's easy to justify not shooting the latter, while it's harder to justify NOT shooting the former (or using non-deadly force if the situation permits). I think the real problem here is that it's hard for a person with one set of ideals and opinions to admit (or to indeed even believe) that a person with a more practical set of ideals, etc, is capable of reasonable thought. In fact, given the debate in net.followup (and net.flame, where all this emotional bullcrap belongs), I think it's safe to say that the presumption is made that any person who disagrees with the writer is incapable of reason. ****This same assumption clearly pervades the standard ugly American attitude toward the USSR, Central America, hippies, rednecks, conservatives, liberals, and life in general.**** Perhaps on a net that consists strictly of educated professionals we could all assume that the opposition consists of more than purveyors of unreasoning rhetoric. <Please note that this assumption would mean that you, the writer, should abandon your own unreasoning rhetoric. ?Perhaps that is asking too much?> Please move the emotionally loaded handgun stuff back to net.flame, where emotion and rage are SUPPOSED to run rampant. I'll be there. Perhaps the discussion of handgun regulation belongs in net.politics, but the way that it's being discussed (at least to date) belongs strictly in net.flame, not net.followup, net.politics, or net.anything_else. Let's save the rest of the net for useful (and WORK RELATED) functions. -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/18/83)
#R:alberta:-49200:uicsl:5400037:000:1481 uicsl!preece Oct 17 08:59:00 1983 I guess that some people don't see any difference between a person who entered a home for the express purpose of committing a crime, and of people who were UNWITTING passengers on a jet that may or may not have been off course deliberately. It's easy to justify not shooting the latter, while it's harder to justify NOT shooting the former (or using non-deadly force if the situation permits). ---------- [The context of the above was a comparison of the morality of shooting an intruder in your home with the shooting down of KAL 007.] The problem with jj's statement is that it assumes the shooter is aware of the identity and motives of the intruder. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Soviet forces did not know that KAL 007 was a passenger plane full of unwitting passengers, but knew only that it was an unknown, possibly hostile intruder in their airspace. I can see no distinction whatever between their action and shooting an intruder in your home. But, you say, I can assume an intruder is a bad guy but the Russians should assume an intruder is a navigation accident. Maybe the probabilities work that way, but remember the Soviets' see a possibly very high cost to a successful intrusion. For that matter, haven't many of you said that one is permitted to defend oneself when one FEELS threatened? Remember, I'm not defending the Soviet action, I'm saying its small scale equivalent isn't defensible, either. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
stephen@alberta (10/18/83)
No, of course he doesn't. This question is silly.
-----------------------
That's just the point... The Soviets killed for the same reason
as he said he was willing to kill but although he is willing to
justify the act when HE does it, he isn't willing to justify the
act when SOMEONE ELSE does it.
If you can justify shooting the toaster stealer <on principle>
then how can't you the soviet actions in a similar situation?
Stephen Samuel
(alberta!stephen)