Human rights?

SunshineKisses_2012

Now playing devil's advocate.

So, what's to stop you kidnapping someone you don't like, taking them home, killing them, setting it up to look like a burglary, and phone the cops and say he broke in so you killed him?

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, how would you kidnap them? If you chose to drug them so they wouldn't fight back, those drugs would be in their system and would be found when an autopsy was conducted. If you chose to bind them, those bindings would leave bruises/impressions in their skin and those would be located in the autopsy.

If you had a history of not liking said person you planned on kidnapping, chances are your friends/family and their friends/family know about it and when the cops get called about the now-dead person, their friends/family would take issue (as they should) and further investigation would be made (thereby an autopsy being conducted with even more scrutiny).

Though it would take more investigation, things of that nature are already investigated to the hilt to ensure justice is served.

Just sayin'.

Be more subtle. Befriend them, invite them round, bang! Smash a window! Put their prints on the brick you threw with your gloved hand!

That wasn't the original premise behind what I responded to.

n003k

I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

You do realize that advocating means "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of"....? I'm assuming you meant this the other way around?

Anyways...I'd be very curious how one determines in a moment of fear, that the threat prior to bringing out the firearm has now become a "non-threat". How can you decide in that split-second whether they're just going to leave your house and not pull out their own gun, knife, etc, and do harm to you? I really think that anyone who hasn't ever been a victim of a violent crime can not be objective in the argument.

Erf, oof, sorry, yes, corrected that, fingers got ahead of me on that one!

And by that I mean if the person sees you draw a gun, and before you line up, they say drop to the ground and put their hands on their head, you don't shoot. If they turn around and run out of your house, you don't shoot. I'm not saying give them a warning,, I'm saying as soon as they cease to be a threat, no matter WHEN that is, you stop shooting.

Rtalen- Exactly, sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I was a bit more specific in my second post, and there's a reason I continue to say shoot to stop, not wound. Shooting to wound, or kill, are both the incorrect path to take. ESPECIALLY shoot to kill though, as that seems more likely to lead to that 'execution shot' if taught by an instructor. If you shoot someone and they bleed out and die before an ambulance gets there, but you stopped shooting as soon as they stopped being a threat, so be it. You shouldn't shoot with the intent to kill however, only to stop the attack. If the threat doesn't stop til it's dead...that's unfortunate, but so be it. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I definitely agree that one needs to fully realize there's a good chance the target will die, I just vehemently disagree with making SURE the target dies no matter what.

LauraMacNCheese

I think you can "what if" this situation until the end of time...the bottom line is this: guns can be dangerous. If you choose to own one, then it's incumbent upon you to learn how to use it properly and safely.

Libby81

Agreed...if the asshat hadn't broken into the house in the first place, they wouldn't have been injured. This country tends to turn "justice system" into an oxymoron...

The UK does it too, a poor bloke went to jail for injuring a burglar while protecting his property. On a few occasions now people have been killed by gangs of kids trying to protect their cars!!!

brittanyjeanxo

I think you can "what if" this situation until the end of time...the bottom line is this: guns can be dangerous. If you choose to own one, then it's incumbent upon you to learn how to use it properly and safely.

DAMN RIGHT!

tigersword

And by that I mean if the person sees you draw a gun, and before you line up, they say drop to the ground and put their hands on their head, you don't shoot. If they turn around and run out of your house, you don't shoot. I'm not saying give them a warning,, I'm saying as soon as they cease to be a threat, no matter WHEN that is, you stop shooting.

Agreed, and the law agrees as well. If you shoot someone that is threatening you, it's justifiable and legal. If you shoot them in the back, regardless of whether they are on your property or not, it's murder.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I glanced through the comments and someone mentioned the school shootings we get occasionally here. My opinion is that if you made it mandatory that a few selected people in every school have a weapon and was well trained in how to use it, there would be even fewer incidents that there are now. The major problem is that everyone KNOWS that schools are gun free zones, so they are the perfect target for a nut job.

One of the really bad shootings, it may have been Columbine, I just don't recall, was finally stopped by a teacher who slipped out of the school, got his hand gun from his car and got control of the situation. There was a situation of a gunman on a rampage in a church and a woman with a weapon put a halt to the rampage.

I like the quote "An armed society is a polite society."

That's all from me.

I'm a teacher and I'd HATE to be one of the people responsible for having the gun on campus.

Hellbent_Heidi

I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

You do realize that advocating means "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of"....? I'm assuming you meant this the other way around?

Anyways...I'd be very curious how one determines in a moment of fear, that the threat prior to bringing out the firearm has now become a "non-threat". How can you decide in that split-second whether they're just going to leave your house and not pull out their own gun, knife, etc, and do harm to you? I really think that anyone who hasn't ever been a victim of a violent crime can not be objective in the argument.

Erf, oof, sorry, yes, corrected that, fingers got ahead of me on that one!

And by that I mean if the person sees you draw a gun, and before you line up, they say drop to the ground and put their hands on their head, you don't shoot. If they turn around and run out of your house, you don't shoot. I'm not saying give them a warning,, I'm saying as soon as they cease to be a threat, no matter WHEN that is, you stop shooting.

Rtalen- Exactly, sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I was a bit more specific in my second post, and there's a reason I continue to say shoot to stop, not wound. Shooting to wound, or kill, are both the incorrect path to take. ESPECIALLY shoot to kill though, as that seems more likely to lead to that 'execution shot' if taught by an instructor. If you shoot someone and they bleed out and die before an ambulance gets there, but you stopped shooting as soon as they stopped being a threat, so be it. You shouldn't shoot with the intent to kill however, only to stop the attack. If the threat doesn't stop til it's dead...that's unfortunate, but so be it. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I definitely agree that one needs to fully realize there's a good chance the target will die, I just vehemently disagree with making SURE the target dies no matter what.

haha...I went back and took it out because I saw that it DID make sense...

I'm not saying always shoot to kill, but I'm just thinking in that moment of someone being IN your home...(like you're woken up and there's a masked intruder in your dark bedroom), it would be VERY difficult, if not impossible to determine if the threat is neutralized when you grab a gun. They could very well have a gun or knife and pull it out the minute you let your guard down (and they could be bigger, faster and stronger). Taking a minute to ponder whether they're no longer a threat and being wrong can get you wounded, raped or killed.

Maybe I've seen too many movies where the bad guy is never stopped...but if someone comes into my home and its them or me...and I can get to our guns...then its going to be them!

Libby81

I like the quote "An armed society is a polite society."

A society should be able to be polite with the use of respect not firearms

livnlite

I don't think it's against the law to stop someone from attempting to hurt you, or your loved ones.. THat is considered self defence. I don't think it's even unlawful to restrain someone from entering your home unlawfully. What is against the law is using excessive force. Keeping in mind what you think is acceptable or excessive is not what the authorities might think as acceptable or excessive

If you find someone in your home, who shouldn't be there ..the thing to do is call police. Lunging at them probably the wisest thing to do considering, the burglar is probably prepared to take his chances even if events turn lethal.

Unless you or your loved ones are in imminent danger, why would you want to risk your safety, and the ability to protect your family to save your computer or sound system ... AT a time like that, where your judgement could cost you .. It's not the time to start wrestling with someone over something that can be replaced often by home owners insurance at the cost of something that can't be replaced .. YOUR LIFE.

n003k

I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

You do realize that advocating means "to speak, plead, or argue in favor of"....? I'm assuming you meant this the other way around?

Anyways...I'd be very curious how one determines in a moment of fear, that the threat prior to bringing out the firearm has now become a "non-threat". How can you decide in that split-second whether they're just going to leave your house and not pull out their own gun, knife, etc, and do harm to you? I really think that anyone who hasn't ever been a victim of a violent crime can not be objective in the argument.

Erf, oof, sorry, yes, corrected that, fingers got ahead of me on that one!

And by that I mean if the person sees you draw a gun, and before you line up, they say drop to the ground and put their hands on their head, you don't shoot. If they turn around and run out of your house, you don't shoot. I'm not saying give them a warning,, I'm saying as soon as they cease to be a threat, no matter WHEN that is, you stop shooting.

Rtalen- Exactly, sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I was a bit more specific in my second post, and there's a reason I continue to say shoot to stop, not wound. Shooting to wound, or kill, are both the incorrect path to take. ESPECIALLY shoot to kill though, as that seems more likely to lead to that 'execution shot' if taught by an instructor. If you shoot someone and they bleed out and die before an ambulance gets there, but you stopped shooting as soon as they stopped being a threat, so be it. You shouldn't shoot with the intent to kill however, only to stop the attack. If the threat doesn't stop til it's dead...that's unfortunate, but so be it. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I definitely agree that one needs to fully realize there's a good chance the target will die, I just vehemently disagree with making SURE the target dies no matter what.

haha...I went back and took it out because I saw that it DID make sense...

I'm not saying always shoot to kill, but I'm just thinking in that moment of someone being IN your home...(like you're woken up and there's a masked intruder in your dark bedroom), it would be VERY difficult, if not impossible to determine if the threat is neutralized when you grab a gun. They could very well have a gun or knife and pull it out the minute you let your guard down (and they could be bigger, faster and stronger). Taking a minute to ponder whether they're no longer a threat and being wrong can get you wounded, raped or killed.

Maybe I've seen too many movies where the bad guy is never stopped...but if someone comes into my home and its them or me...and I can get to our guns...then its going to be them!

And I'd agree with you there, if I can't tell for certain the person isn't a threat at that point, I'm not going to try to figure it out either. I just figured in the example I'd go from one extreme (Not having to shoot at all) to the other (having to shoot until they ARE dead) to make the point that you stop as soon as the threat stops, whenever that might be. I'm sure it becomes clear if the person runs out the door, or drops to the ground gripping the gun shot wound that they're no longer a threat, and that's what I referred to, with everyone talking about shooting to kill. I just was shocked to read that an instructor would advocate to shoot to kill, when, if the person thinks its what they're supposed to do in the situation, might lead to the shooting continuing with the target on the ground, or running down the street and away from you, which is sure you get you charged at those points.

anotheryearolder

I'm a teacher and I'd HATE to be one of the people responsible for having the gun on campus.

Well then by all means you shouldn't be the one responsible.

I never meant that a few random people should be picked to carry; that would be a disaster! People chosen to carry would have to be comfortable with weapons, be well trained and willing to take on the responsibility. That goes without saying.

There are a number of ways to eliminate the gun free zone policy. I just mentioned one. To me, having a gun free school zone is akin to putting a sign in your yard proclaiming that you are a pacifist and do not have weapons in your home. Logic tells me that house is more likely to be a target. I would prefer to keep the bad guys guessing.

ArroganceInStep

n003k: I knew that was what you meant, but in the same way you have a strong feeling with respect to making sure the target dies no matter what I have strong feelings about people using firearms halfway. I firmly believe that anyone who pulls a gun that isn't ready and willing both mentally and physically to use it is a serious danger to themselves and others.

lauramac426: you're smart

Curious about this in response to brittanyjeanxo's statement. What is your view on making your presence (and the presence of a big ****ing gun) known to potential assailants? I go back and forth on this one and am curious what others think.

Hellbent_Heidi

A society should be able to be polite with the use of respect not firearms

The key word here being "should"

Sadly, I think we can all agree that such a "society" doesn't actually exist anywhere!

Anyway...I hope nobody here has had to deal with this type of thing...or ever does. I don't believe there are many people who could think through a threatening situation with complete logic and forethought. Its not like you get a phone call at 8PM telling you that someone in a ski mask will be coming in your bedroom window at 2AM, so you might want to have a plan in place...and then proceed to tell you if that masked person will respond logically as well. There are a whole lot of crazies running around out there and its lot easier to sit here and say what should or shouldn't happen when we aren't facing it.

n003k

Definitely fair enough Rtalen, trust me, I'd jump in right along side you if I saw someones instructors advocating shoot to wound also. I don't want a 'good guy' whether they be a cop, or a citizen with a gun ending up dead by not doing enough, or ending up in prison because they kept going when it was obvious they didn't need to, ya know?

And as far as Brittany's statement, I'm personally in the camp that prefers they not know I have a gun until they see a muzzle flash and feel a bullet. I figure making it obvious is just giving them time to retaliate.

brittanyjeanxo

n003k: I knew that was what you meant, but in the same way you have a strong feeling with respect to making sure the target dies no matter what I have strong feelings about people using firearms halfway. I firmly believe that anyone who pulls a gun that isn't ready and willing both mentally and physically to use it is a serious danger to themselves and others.

lauramac426: you're smart

Curious about this in response to brittanyjeanxo's statement. What is your view on making your presence (and the presence of a big ****ing gun) known to potential assailants? I go back and forth on this one and am curious what others think.

I think that if you're open carrying, then the point of that is kinda to make it very clear that you have a way to defend yourself. However, in the case of a CCW the point is to keep it concealed. At our house, we make no point to try to be sneaky in any way about the guns we own--we have a NRA sticker on our door to kind of ward off potential offender :bigsmile: After all, I'd rather have someone choose not to break in because they KNOW we have guns than have to shoot someone in fear of my life. I feel like, if it's in your home, there are ways to do it (like a NRA sticker on the door) without just saying, "I GOT A BIG F*CKING GUN AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!" to ward off any potential offenders. However, in public, absolutely NOT. If you're concealed carrying, there is a reason it is concealed. If you try to make it obviously and allow others to know, well, I think it gives them time to be ready for it, and it makes you seem like a nutjob and could end with the police involved. :huh:

ArroganceInStep

Definitely fair enough Rtalen, trust me, I'd jump in right along side you if I saw someones instructors advocating shoot to wound also. I don't want a 'good guy' whether they be a cop, or a citizen with a gun ending up dead by not doing enough, or ending up in prison because they kept going when it was obvious they didn't need to, ya know?

And as far as Brittany's statement, I'm personally in the camp that prefers they not know I have a gun until they see a muzzle flash and feel a bullet. I figure making it obvious is just giving them time to retaliate.

I would normally agree, but then I think back to the time I was visiting my dad and went out. Got to his place at like 3 AM and has some troubles opening the door (it's a bit tricky, I hadn't lived there in a while, and was admittedly kind of drunk). Walking into a gun pointed at you is a bad thing (side note: best thing to do in this situation is hold your hands up and say 'I swear she told me she was 18') but it was worse on my dad. I'm very thankful that he's well trained and disciplined with firearms, but almost shooting your son isn't something you want to go through. I think that's the only thing that gives me pause, otherwise I'd be 100% in agreement with you.

ArroganceInStep

"I GOT A BIG F*CKING GUN AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!"

So THAT'S why I was getting all those funny looks at the bank today!

anotheryearolder

I like the quote "An armed society is a polite society."

A society should be able to be polite with the use of respect not firearms

What does that have to do with anything? Considering this is a health site, we SHOULD all eat well, get enough exercise and maintain a healthy weight. I don't know about you but I need to improve in some of those areas!

It is my opinion, the availability of weapons to good guys evens the odds and therefore does indeed make for a more polite society. I have removed myself from verbally tense situations before precisely because I carry. I think most who carry are more polite simply because they are armed.

ItsCasey

I don't know the laws in every state, but in Texas, you can only threaten the use of deadly force if the ACTUAL use of deadly force is legally justifiable (for instance, a reasonable person in your position would believe his/her safety was in jeopardy). You can't just whip out your gun if you see a suspicious-looking person coming toward you on the sidewalk.

There are also laws in Texas regarding the reckless use of a firearm, even in the case of self-defense, which is why we are taught that you shoot to kill, not to wound. Shooting at someone's arms or legs or feet is reckless, most especially if there are others in the vicinity. Shoot the perp in the chest. That'll "remove the threat" better than any other method.

iAMaPhoenix

I do not disagree with the "shoot to stop" idea, but I was using the exact term spelled out in the literature I was given by an NRA certified instructor. He explained that how do we know what shoot to stop is in every circumstance. Example used was that is a 122# woman was posing imminent danger to you, she can probably be stopped with a 22cal. shot to the chest. But that may not work on a 300# guy. He also confirmed n003k point that you aim and shoot where you have the greatest chance of hitting the target which is the 'triangle'(shoulder to shoulder to sternum).

I must say that I took the class and have a concealed weapons permit, but have not bought a firearm. I have small children at home, and for now I feel safe with my alarm system, 360 degree perimeter camera system outside and a camera at each entrance point of my home. Right now I can see my wife and kids in the garage from my cell phone. We live within a mile of a police station and I can with one finger alert them at any time. Another reason is that even though I am a rather cool, calm, and collected individual, I do tend to shoot off my mouth without thinking sometimes, so I am afraid of what I would do with a gun...lol

Thomasm198

Just throwing in my on the gun ownership and crime aspect of this.

Over here in Ireland we have some of the toughest gun laws around.
Examples: No pistols over .22 calibre, any more than 5 guns requires an alarm system installed on the property, the alarm system has to be monitored remotely by a security company and the firearms have to be kept in an approved safe.

We still have quite a few crimes involving firearms. And surprisingly enough, ownership of fully automatic sub-machine guns is illegal yet that doesn't stop criminals having them and using them.

Conclusion:
Restrictive gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of people that will use them for sporting purposes and leave criminals with firearms.

pnieuw

one of the very few things i love about Alabama...you come in MY house, even onto my property with the intent to cause harm to me, my family or my property...then i have the right to shoot your stupid *kitten*...and yes, i have a gun (a few actually) and i know how to use it....

One of the things I love about Canada is hardly anyone owns a gun, and our rate of gun deaths per 100,000 of population is 1/3 of the US and 1/10th for murders.

LaComadreja14

pretty sure that depends on the state. Not positive, but almost... In Texas, if they are in/on your property, you have rights. Gotta TEXAS!!!

I used to have a friend (lost touch with her unfortunately) who was from Texas, she was much older than me but was a really fun person to talk to- she had a way "larger than life" personality that I just loved. She used to sit in the break room and tell everyone stories about her 3 ex husbands and how they used to come up on her propery and she'd shoot at them and nailed one of them pretty good in his hamstring (she was aiming somewhere else) lol. Man she was a trip..

Anywhoo, one time another employee was telling a story about how he and his wife got sued because a man broke into their home in the middle of the night.. They didn't have a door to their basement and the burgler (of course) didn't want to turn the lights on.... apparently he thought that the opening to the basement was an opening to any other room and he fell down the stairs and almost cracked his head open on the cement ground. The lady from Texas starts goin off about how insane VA is and how bad she needed to go back home.. so yea I think it probably is a state by state thing

LauraMacNCheese

n003k: I knew that was what you meant, but in the same way you have a strong feeling with respect to making sure the target dies no matter what I have strong feelings about people using firearms halfway. I firmly believe that anyone who pulls a gun that isn't ready and willing both mentally and physically to use it is a serious danger to themselves and others.

lauramac426: you're smart

Curious about this in response to brittanyjeanxo's statement. What is your view on making your presence (and the presence of a big ****ing gun) known to potential assailants? I go back and forth on this one and am curious what others think.

Thanks :bigsmile: We always had shotguns in the house when I was growing because most of my brothers liked to hunt. My parents said I could too if I chose; but I'd have to complete a gun safety course first. I never did because I wasn't interested in hunting. But I would never own a gun without taking a safety course and practicing on a range first. A gun in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Libby81

A society should be able to be polite with the use of respect not firearms

The key word here being "should"

Sadly, I think we can all agree that such a "society" doesn't actually exist anywhere!

Anyway...I hope nobody here has had to deal with this type of thing...or ever does. I don't believe there are many people who could think through a threatening situation with complete logic and forethought. Its not like you get a phone call at 8PM telling you that someone in a ski mask will be coming in your bedroom window at 2AM, so you might want to have a plan in place...and then proceed to tell you if that masked person will respond logically as well. There are a whole lot of crazies running around out there and its lot easier to sit here and say what should or shouldn't happen when we aren't facing it.

Totally agreed

wriglucy

Now playing devil's advocate.

So, what's to stop you kidnapping someone you don't like, taking them home, killing them, setting it up to look like a burglary, and phone the cops and say he broke in so you killed him?

That seems like an awful lot of hard work.... lol

The detectives in homocide are pretty intelligent. They wouldn't see through it. Most times when something is a set up, like was described, there is some evidence that will surface to disprove it. (I watch a lot of "first 48" and those murder shows The investigations are soooo interesting!)

Steven

Posters,

Thanks for keeping it civil. I really do appreciate it.

However, it has been (correctly) pointed out to me, that it's not really fair to other threads of a political nature that have been locked by myself or other moderators to allow some threads to continue and others not.

The guidelines on this are pretty black and white:

13) Topics about politics, religion, atheism, or sexuality are not allowed and will be deleted. This includes posting images or signatures. Unfortunately, we have seen that topics about any of these subjects are highly likely to result in heated arguments and disputes. If you really wish to discuss either of these topics, please google political forums, religious forums, etc. - there are plenty of other places to express your views.

Thanks for your mature engagement on this topic. But to prevent a legitimate accusation of hypocrisy, I will lock the thread at this point and ask you all to enjoy your weekends.

Regards,
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff