MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
canoe rack
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 69.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:01 am

snoqueen wrote:Having your car and your stuff stolen is a setback and an annoyance, but not a situation calling for the taking of someone else's life. I still think you're running a grow operation.


Having your house broken into is a bit more serious than the "setback and annoyance" of having your stuff stolen. I also remember when Sno claimed that armed robbery was no different than shoplifting. Isn't it odd how she likes to minimize the severity of criminal actions, and exaggerate what she perceives to be the evils of law-abiding armed citizens?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:51 am

He didn't say he was home when the house got broken into. He would have called that home invasion not a break in. Getting electronics stolen is not reason to take someone's life. It's a disappointment and an annoyance, a disturbance, a property crime and an insurance matter.

I stand by my belief these are not situations that warrant the taking of a life. The security video we were discussing when I made my other comment (about armed robbery) didn't rise to that level either.

Why do you think it's OK to summarily kill people for this kind of stuff? In the US our courts do not sentence people to death for doing things at this level. Why should it be just fine for individuals to carry out such a sentence on their own?

I'm saying it's not. It's totally disproportionate.

Possibly this is an anomaly in the law -- you believe in castle doctrine and believe that the rights it confers exceed the rights and responsibilities of the courts and the rights (to life) of the perpetrators. I disagree. Time will tell, but if the United States is moving in a direction similar to other developed countries I think my view will prevail in the long run, and I think it'll be like gay rights. All of a sudden (not tomorrow, but in time) the winds will turn and though no one will be able to put their finger on the point where it happened, it will be a done deal.

I suppose I should be glad we aren't hacking off people's hands for stealing electronics -- we're just shooting them on the spot. Oh well.

The very fact we as a nation are having this discussion at all levels is a good sign and a contribution to the turning of the winds on this issue, same as every time a gay person came out contributed to the wearing-away of longstanding patterns of prejudice. Pointing out longstanding patterns of disproportionate reliance on violence to solve problems with other, better solutions is essential to finding a new way.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:47 pm

snoqueen wrote:

Why do you think it's OK to summarily kill people for this kind of stuff?



Why do you say I think so? I do not, and I don't believe I've ever said anything to the contrary. I think one should only use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person. I believe that under most circumstances killing or greatly wounding another person will be a horrible experience and should be avoided as much as one reasonably can avoid it, even when the law allows more latitude in your choice to employ deadly force. For example, while the castle doctrine may say that one has the presumption that deadly force is justified when defending against someone forcibly entering into one of the 3 places considered one's "castle," I personally wouldn't use deadly force against the intruder unless their intrusion also brought with it a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

I think you're confused on a couple of things here. First you seem to think that there's no significant difference between what is a property crime (e.g., theft) and armed robbery (which is a property crime committed in combination with an assault against a person.) There's a huge difference, and this is recognized under the law. If you left your cellphone on top of a restaurant table and someone snatched it as they walked by while you were distracted, that's a theft. If that same person held a knife up and said "give me your cell phone!" that's not only you losing your phone, but having your life threatened too: an assault. You seem to think "Well, the net result in either case is a loss of a cell phone. Therefore, there's no big difference in the crimes committed." You ought to know that under the law one CAN use a reasonable amount of force to protect property. But one cannot use deadly force (at least not in Wisconsin) to protect property alone because it's not considered a reasonable amount of force. Also while snatching your phone from the table would be considered a misdemeanor, taking even a penny from you at gunpoint would be a felony.

The other thing you're confused about is the Castle Doctrine. There are a couple of things at work here. In Wisconsin when a person claims they acted in self-defense, a prosecutor when deciding whether to prosecute that person, or a jury when deciding to convict or acquit, will look at a number questions. One of the questions they will examine is whether the person who claims self-defense used a "reasonable" amount of force (or threat of force.) In 1999 a state appeals court ruled that while there is "no duty to retreat" from a threat in Wisconsin, still it is permissible for a jury to take into account whether an opportunity to retreat was present when deciding whether an actor used a reasonable amount of force in their self-defense. If there's no reasonable means of escape, then it's not an issue. But if one fails to take advantage of an opportunity to flee when such an opportunity is present, the jury may decide that the actor used more force than necessary to prevent or stop an unlawful interference with their person. Since one can only use "a reasonable amount of force" that puts some self-defense claims on uncertain ground: on one hand the law says you have no duty to retreat, but on the other hand the courts are saying if you fail to take advantage of an opportunity to flee your self-defense claim may be damaged. The Castle Doctrine is based on the concept that if you're in your residence, your vehicle or your place of business, you already are in your place of retreat (a/k/a your castle.) The Castle Doctrine therefore removes, at least for those 3 places, the question of whether you have an opportunity to retreat out of consideration. Failure to retreat from where is already considered your place of retreat cannot be held against you, as it can be apparently everywhere else you may be under that 1999 case. The other thing that the Castle Doctrine did, and perhaps this is the part you object to, as I understand it, it basically says when you're in "your castle" you don't really have to make a determination of the intentions of someone who is in the act of forcibly entering your castle. You don't need to figure out if he or she is simply coming in to get your stamp collection, or if they are coming in to get you, or your child. The law now says if you're forcibly entering a home "it sucks to be you" because that homeowner or business owner doesn't have to standby to figure out why you're breaking in. Now I highly doubt that prior to the Castle Doctrine law many prosecutors in Wisconsin actually attempted to prosecute a homeowner for using deadly force against someone breaking into their house. Most people would probably be outraged at a prosecutor for trying such a thing. People want to feel that they can be secure in their homes and that the law will grant them considerable lee-way and support in how they protect themselves there. So I am guessing that the part of the Castle Doctrine that you find most objectionable is also the part that probably isn't really changing things much from how they were prior to its passage.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:55 pm

snoqueen wrote: In the US our courts do not sentence people to death for doing things at this level. Why should it be just fine for individuals to carry out such a sentence on their own?

I'm saying it's not. It's totally disproportionate.


If court sentencing is the test or standard you are applying here, since there is no crime under Wisconsin law which results in a death penalty you must believe that deadly force is never justified in Wisconsin under any circumstance. By your reasoning, even one who is in the act of hacking children to death with a machete ought not to be shot at because even such a terrible crime would not bring the death penalty in this state.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:56 pm

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:19 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
snoqueen wrote: In the US our courts do not sentence people to death for doing things at this level. Why should it be just fine for individuals to carry out such a sentence on their own?

I'm saying it's not. It's totally disproportionate.


If court sentencing is the test or standard you are applying here, since there is no crime under Wisconsin law which results in a death penalty you must believe that deadly force is never justified in Wisconsin under any circumstance. By your reasoning, even one who is in the act of hacking children to death with a machete ought not to be shot at because even such a terrible crime would not bring the death penalty in this state.


Hacking someone to death is not the same as stealing electronics, which is what we were talking about (note the part I bolded above).

I don't know how you decided I was speaking only of Wisconsin. I think Ned's in Minnesota, to start with. Even the President has decided some aspects of gun legislation need to be addressed federally instead of state by state, which makes sense not only because of the bill of rights, but also because interstate commerce is involved. This is a national discussion, not a Wisconsin one.

You're doing everything you can to muddy the main point, which is that killing someone over electronic toys is disproportionate, and preparing to do so pretty much assumes you'll be home 100% of the time so you can be ready to carry out your plans.

All this legal obfuscation is a smokescreen to distract from what's important here: disproportionate violence, and the general ineffectiveness of keeping guns in the belief they will ward off the random crap of life with no countervailing social price being paid. Laws -- even constitutions -- are our servants and tools, not an excuse for defending otherwise-indefensible actions.

I can't wait until someone collects and analyzes national data and compares the number of gun accidents, gun suicides, accidents involving children, and domestic-dispute shootings in households with guns and without, and then shows how much safer/less safe are the gun households compared with the gunless in terms of property crime, car theft, etc . I'm guessing any safety benefits are so minuscule compared with the number of tragedies the gun manufacturers' lobby has been trying to hide it for years. If I am wrong the numbers will show it.

These numbers need the light of day and need to be analyzed from every possible angle so we can devise more rational social policies. I'm thinking once we take a good look, sensible policy changes will be so obvious as to gather public acceptance well above 60%. Until then, I suppose bluster about the fine points of existing pro-gun legislation will be deliberately continued in order to drown out reasoned consideration of the consequences of that legislation and of the actions people take without yet knowing -- or while ignoring or denying -- their statistically most likely results.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:27 pm

snoqueen wrote:I can't wait until someone collects and analyzes national data and compares the number of gun accidents, gun suicides, accidents involving children, and domestic-dispute shootings in households with guns and without, and then shows how much safer/less safe are the gun households compared with the gunless in terms of property crime, car theft, etc . I'm guessing any safety benefits are so minuscule compared with the number of tragedies the gun manufacturers' lobby has been trying to hide it for years. If I am wrong the numbers will show it.

These numbers need the light of day ...

The NRA has done everything in their power to make sure those numbers never see the light of day. They have written legislation, which their lackeys in Congrees have introduced and passed, that forbids the government from collecting such data.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19573
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:53 pm

All Things Considered actually had a whole feature on that prohibition on tonight's news. It's probably not archived yet as I write this, but later on it'll be found on npr.org.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:23 pm

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:08 pm

A handgun, a shotgun, ammunition, jewelry, a coin collection, electronics and a safe were taken during the daytime burglary of a Madison home, according to police.


Another case of guns in the home that don't help during a burglary.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19573
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:28 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
A handgun, a shotgun, ammunition, jewelry, a coin collection, electronics and a safe were taken during the daytime burglary of a Madison home, according to police.


Another case of guns in the home that don't help during a burglary.


Based on the report there is no indication anyone was home at the time of the burglary. I don't think anyone would expect a gun to be much help in stopping a burglar when the resident was not in the house.

Were you attempting to demonstrate that guns do not actually shoot people?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2159
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:33 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:
A handgun, a shotgun, ammunition, jewelry, a coin collection, electronics and a safe were taken during the daytime burglary of a Madison home, according to police.


Another case of guns in the home that don't help during a burglary.


Based on the report there is no indication anyone was home at the time of the burglary. I don't think anyone would expect a gun to be much help in stopping a burglar when the resident was not in the house.

That's why it is called a burlary and not a robbery. I posted this because people like Ned and DMan (who seems to be absent from most of these discussions since the Sandy Hook massacre) claim that have guns in the home will somehow keep them safe from such events.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19573
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:42 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Based on the report there is no indication anyone was home at the time of the burglary. I don't think anyone would expect a gun to be much help in stopping a burglar when the resident was not in the house.

That's why it is called a burlary and not a robbery. I posted this because people like Ned and DMan (who seems to be absent from most of these discussions since the Sandy Hook massacre) claim that have guns in the home will somehow keep them safe from such events.


I was not under the impression that they attributed any aura of invulnerability being gained by simply having the gun in ones home; rather that they would be able to use deadly force to protect themselves from the threat of a forced entry while they were present.

Whether using deadly force to stop someone from stealing your TV is an appropriate response seemed to be where the debate was focused most recently. That and if having a gun in the house made you more or less safe.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2159
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby rabble » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:16 pm

There's also been some discussion on whether letting it be known that there's guns in your house is a deterrent or an attractant for thieves.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:44 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Crazy is the new normal. U.S. Representative Stev Stockman (R-Texas)

Stockman is at it again. He invited Ted Nugent to attend Obama's State of the Union address. My only question is who is crazier, Stockman or the Nuge?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19573
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar