Is Florida's Stand Your Ground Law a Dangerous Step Backward?

[moose]

and carrying a concealed weapon should always be illegal.

I hope you are joking!

Criminals won't care if carrying concealed weapons is legal or not.

Second of all, crime rates went down drastically in Arizona after concealed weapon permits were more easily attainable because criminals weren't sure if someone has means of defending themselves anymore...

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the American situation. But from the sounds of this thread none of you yanks have any faith in your police force. Suggest a few reformations perhapse?

Ok, the police force in my area is good, but there are times when you cannot rely on police. For example, if someone is about to kill you, there is no way you can call the police and wait a few minutes etc...

Also, if something is stolen, chances are you will never get it back. No matter how good the police is, how in the world would they find what the person stole if the criminal is even somewhat smart?

 

[loseyourname]

I have been surprised to see most violent crimes in LA down 50% since 1992. It isn't because the citizens are given permission to shoot "threatening" people; it's because the police force has reorganised their beats and numbers on the street (according to the LAPD.) It would seem we can reduce crime ... without telling citizens to arm themselves!

http://www.lapdonline.org/pdf_files/crime_stats/wkly_stats/2005_crime_summary.pdf

Haven't found the specific staitistics that i was looking for, but I'll keep at it - later.

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty, but there is nothing natural or civilized about a person that would rather die than kill. Yours is simply one point of view. Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable. I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

 

[loseyourname]

An armed society is a polite society

Countries which completely ban firearms usually have much higher crime rates...

DC is the only US city I can think of that banned firearms a while back. San Francisco may have done so recently. DC also happened to be the murder capital of the country for a very long time until it was finally overtaken by St. Louis several years ago. The firearms ban didn't seem to help them a whole lot.

 

[pattylou]

For example, if someone is about to kill you...

Come on. Get real. How many times has this happened to you?

How many times has this happened to someone you know?

How many times have you heard about this sort of scenario on your local news?

(I'm guessing the number is pretty small.)

I have a sister who was raped in her house. Let's say she had shot the guy as he was leaving (I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have the gun on her as a matter of course when she's in the house, and the rape would not have been prevented.)

In that case she would have *two* traumatic events to overcome. She was never in danger of being killed, either, although I am sure she feared for her life.

And yes, he was caught. IIRC, before any more women were raped. He was a barbarian, and there but for the grace of God go any of us. You might wish that she had killed the guy, but she has never expressed such a desire to us.

Yes, the world is a mess. The question is whether this measure helps overall.

 

[moose]

DC is the only US city I can think of that banned firearms a while back. San Francisco may have done so recently. DC also happened to be the murder capital of the country for a very long time until it was finally overtaken by St. Louis several years ago. The firearms ban didn't seem to help them a whole lot.

I said countries, but you can also look at where gun laws a stricter, such as california.

 

[pattylou]

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

No, I don't remember that.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty,

Thanks. I'm not saying it to be nice, but because I'd rather defend the *part* of my *self* that I care about. If you care more about the physical working of your anatomy, than about your ideals and ethics, then fine. Kill other people. Your anatomy should survive it. Your sense of self *won't.*

Yours is simply one point of view.

As is Pengwuinos. How should we deccide which POV should govern law?

Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable.

No, it has been a POV that has governed which laws are passed.

I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

I said it was more respectful of self.

 

[Art]

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty, but there is nothing natural or civilized about a person that would rather die than kill. Yours is simply one point of view. Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable. I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

You appear to be assuming that all criminals intend to kill while perpetrating a crime?

I am sure most criminals and the vast majority of crimes are to do with plunder rather than murder.

As theft is wrong there are laws against it and a police force to enforce those laws. Encouraging people to 'defend' themselves through the use of firearms changes a relatively minor crime into a major incident where somebody ends up dead.

In the worst case that dead person is the robbery victim, killed whils defending him / herself but it is also a travesty if some kid ends up being killed for committing a crime that the law has proscribed is only punishable by a few months or years in gaol.

To me the answer is not more guns but better crime prevention and detection.

 

[pattylou]

Other parts of the world see a reduction when bans are in place:

http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/Small%20arms/JAMA_article.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

You appear to be assuming that all criminals intend to kill while perpetrating a crime?

How so? I haven't mentioned any crime other than assault with a deadly weapon. I am assuming that when someone assaults you with a deadly weapon, they intend to kill, or at least likely will kill, whether intentional or not.

As theft is wrong there are laws against it and a police force to enforce those laws. Encouraging people to 'defend' themselves through the use of firearms changes a relatively minor crime into a major incident where somebody ends up dead.

Great. When did I mention anything about theft?

 

[loseyourname]

No, I don't remember that.

How on Earth do you not remember that? How long have you been living in Southern California? It was the biggest story in the news for a long time.

Thanks. I'm not saying it to be nice, but because I'd rather defend the *part* of my *self* that I care about. If you care more about the physical working of your anatomy, than about your ideals and ethics, then fine. Kill other people. Your anatomy should survive it. Your sense of self *won't.*

Wrong, patty. Your sense of self would be damaged. I don't define my self by the fact that it has not yet ended a human life. If it should do so, and the act is justified, I will lose nothing.

As is Pengwuinos. How should we deccide which POV should govern law?

You two are representing rather extreme points of view. This law, and pretty much every other law that exists in this country regarding matters like these, are governed by points of view that lie somewhere in between.

No, it has been a POV that has governed which laws are passed.

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

I said it was more respectful of self.

Is your self going to live on after your body dies? If you believe that, then so be it. Not all of us do.

 

[Art]

How so? I haven't mentioned any crime other than assault with a deadly weapon. I am assuming that when someone assaults you with a deadly weapon, they intend to kill, or at least likely will kill, whether intentional or not.
Great. When did I mention anything about theft?

Silly of me I mistakenly thought your post was related to the OP wherein a new law is cited whereby people are being given the right to shoot people who 'threaten' their personal space.

However as you have now made it clear you were referring only to homicidal maniacs and serial killers do you really think that given the very small odds of meeting one of them, carrying a firearm is really justified?

 

[edward]

So? Where would I be beaten up within 5 minutes, raped and so on, because I am a white woman?

Actually South Central Las Angeles is a good place to get beaten and robbed. At night it is almost guaranteed. The is a particularly nasty area in Miami to avoid. Nearly every major city has a section where it is not safe to visit or walk alone.

Biological researchers at the University Of Arizona are not allowed to do field work within 40 miles of the Border unless they are accompanied by an armed guard. Drug runners and people smugglers are now carrying automatic weapons.

At my request ICE agents did surveillance on the house across the street from mine. It is on a hill top and surrounded by a heavy metal fence. Just after dark one evening I got a call telling me to keep low. A swat team came down the street in an armored personnel carrier, they flew up the driveway to the house and crashed through the metal gate.

They quickly smashed in the door and tossed in a flash bang grenade, of course I wasn't keeping low I was watching the whole thing. When it was all over they had seized 4000 lbs of pot, 20 lbs of meth and 43 lbs of cocaine. The part that really concerned me was that they also seized 4 AK 47,s and 450 rounds of ammunition. Three men were arrested.

About two weeks later an ICE agent came to talk to me. He told me that a judge had set the bail too low and that the guys had made bail and skipped out of town. Later I found out that this is typical when a Mexican gang is involved. The judges don't want to have to deal with any possible reprisals.

Do I live in a high crime area? No I live in an upper middle class area. Am I armed? Yes at all times.

 

[deckart]

Generally, as Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. It's a basic right. Most people, in their right mind, will kill before being killed. Even if it lands them in jail. But, it most certainly is not murder to defend yourself. That's rediculous.

 

[pattylou]

How on Earth do you not remember that? How long have you been living in Southern California? It was the biggest story in the news for a long time.

I ...don't. Moved here in '94. Possibly I didn't watch the news, or possibly I have forgotten it. I don't remember "The Rampart Scandal." Sorry.

Wrong, patty. Your sense of self would be damaged. I don't define my self by the fact that it has not yet ended a human life. If it should do so, and the act is justified, I will lose nothing.

Why would my sense of self be damaged? I can easily accept that to kill someone is within your ethics. It isn't within mine.

You two are representing rather extreme points of view. This law, and pretty much every other law that exists in this country regarding matters like these, are governed by points of view that lie somewhere in between.

I agree with that.

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

I've always been more fond of Jesus than Christianity in general, or the OT in particular.

Is your self going to live on after your body dies? If you believe that, then so be it. Not all of us do.

I don't hold a belief one way or the other. I'm agnostic. I think the fact that we *can't know* what happens when we die, is sufficient reason to behave as though we do survive it, even though I put the odds of survival of death at close to zero.

But it doesn't matter. You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

 

[Townsend]

You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

As I have said before...I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. However I no desire to kill anyone. If someone were to break into my house they can take whatever they want. The only thing I would care about is my own safety and that of friends and family in the house with me. As long as the burglars don't try to harm anyone he or she wouldn't have to fear me.

But how do I know if this person would be willing to hurt someone? I don't so I get everyone together in one room and lock the door. I train the muzzle at the door and wait...if they leave I call the police and report the crime. If they decide to come through that door, that person is dead. It's not something I would want to happen but I would rather kill them than be killed.

 

[motai]

But how do I know if this person would be willing to hurt someone? I don't so I get everyone together in one room and lock the door. I train the muzzle at the door and wait...if they leave I call the police and report the crime. If they decide to come through that door, that person is dead. It's not something I would want to happen but I would rather kill them than be killed.

It seems like criminals, when doing an invasion of a home, will be willing and able to use violence on the people that they are raiding. Especially if they had a history of violent behavior.

If only those criminals knew what destruction they do to families of the victims when they turn a regular robbery into a homicide or murder.

 

[deckart]

They know, they just don't care.

 

[Entropy]

I don't understand how a gun can help you if you get ambushed. You'd think someone would just walk behind you then stick the gun to your head. You wouldn't be able to pull out your gun. Or if he pulls the gun out first (which is probably the case), how could you shoot him before he shoots you?

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

Jews can kill under strict criteria. Christians cannot kill, period. The crusades and stuff are not part of the bible.

 

[loseyourname]

Silly of me I mistakenly thought your post was related to the OP wherein a new law is cited whereby people are being given the right to shoot people who 'threaten' their personal space.

I think you're mistaking what Pengwuino wants the law to be for what it actually is. From what I remember, it says that you can legally kill someone who is a threat to your life, not someone who is invading your personal space.

In fact, this is already what murder laws everywhere in the country state. The difference is that, in most cases, the killer would have to prove self-defense in court. If I can put forth a guess, this law in Florida is probably trying to reduce waste in the legal system by not prosecuting people who they know are going to get off because they are not guilty of any crime to begin with. To he honest, I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary, because it seems to me that the prosecutor can already decide not to file a charge if it is obvious that the person was acting in self-defense, but perhaps I am wrong.

However as you have now made it clear you were referring only to homicidal maniacs and serial killers do you really think that given the very small odds of meeting one of them, carrying a firearm is really justified?

Come on, Art, how are we supposed to engage in meaningful discussion if we intentionally misrepresent each other's arguments? You know I'm not talking about coming across a homocidal maniac. All I've said is that, in the instance where a person is a direct threat to your life, you are justified in killing that person before they kill you. I don't care if you do it with a gun, a knife, your bare hands, or your terrible looks. This is in response to patty's contention that one should never kill under any circumstances. It isn't in response to the OP or to the Florida Law.

 

[loseyourname]

I ...don't. Moved here in '94. Possibly I didn't watch the news, or possibly I have forgotten it. I don't remember "The Rampart Scandal." Sorry.

Fair enough. You must have been really busy at the time. Anyway, you should look it up, because I get the feeling that rogue police tactics like the kind uncovered in this scandal had a lot to do with reducing the violent crime rate in Los Angeles. It just raises that age-old question: Which do we value more? Civil liberties, which can often take the form of obviously guilty heinous criminals getting off on technicalities, or security?

Why would my sense of self be damaged? I can easily accept that to kill someone is within your ethics. It isn't within mine.

I meant that your sense of self would be damaged if you killed someone. At least, that seemed to be what you were implying when you said that I would lose my sense of self if I were to kill. I'm pretty certain that I would not. My sense of self would be altered, but it is hardly a static thing to begin with. I don't mind having to re-evaluate what it means to be Adam.

I've always been more fond of Jesus than Christianity in general, or the OT in particular.

Still, you get my point. I'm mostly working in the secular tradition here. Our legal system does derive from older ethical theories as well as from British Common Law. For the most part, western ethicists have agreed that it is justified to kill to protect oneself from being killed.

But it doesn't matter. You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

There are plenty of choices I can never unmake, and even the bad ones I don't regret. What would be the point? And again, why would I regret or even feel bad about doing something that I think is justified? As far as I am concerned, a person forfeits his own life when he makes the decision to attempt to take mine. It is his choice to die as much as it is mine to kill him.

 

[Anttech]

Other parts of the world see a reduction when bans are in place:

http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/S...AMA_article.pdf

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

It follows that having very tough gun laws (including shooting people in self defence) and removing a "Gun culture" from a country decrease the deadly faitality rate...

The only problem with implementing this in America is that you crossed the line many years ago, and Guns and gun culture is engrained into your Psyche.

 

[devil-fire]

i don't think i understand the thinking of these law makers, even after reading all these posts. the former law said you first had to try to avoid being killed before killing your aggressor (if you hear someone break into your house maybe hide under your bed and shoot if they find you instead of stand in the hallway with a gun pointed, waiting for them to pop their heads around the corner?) but now you can really kill first and think later. in some situation it may save your life to shoot at the dark figure in the night but in most cases its your daughter who dropped a glass of water and was coming to your bedroom to ask you to clean it up.

on the point of criminals being crazy and will kill anyone without hesitating, it sounds like they are defending themselves while they rob stuff. i mean the guy must be thinking "i'm liable to get shot in here by granny or by 6 year-old-bill so i might as well kill anything that moves or breaths first thing". moral or otherwise, those robbers have an interest in killing people instead of running since it'll just get them shot in the back.

if someone is in my house ill first call 911 with the hope the police will arrive while the criminal is in my house and save me from confronting the criminal at all. i Could take one of the sharpened swords off my cabinet and try to slice his head off soon as i can (where i live, i don't think a punk would carry a gun, but maybe a knife instead so i think i would trump him with the katana) but I'm concern about missing and getting stabbed in return, killing my dog instead, hurting the guy and later finding out it was a family member and most of all, I'm concern that i might kill someone who dosn't need to die. someone may think its completely agreeable to shoot someone as they walk away with my tv but i duno, i kind of respect human life more then my tv. i mean if i really put more value on a tv then the life of some chump, i would be stealing tvs.

 

[devil-fire]

It just raises that age-old question: Which do we value more? Civil liberties, which can often take the form of obviously guilty heinous criminals getting off on technicalities, or security?

the best thing to do is norrow technicalities so obviously guilty heinous criminals don't get off on them. its a lot more work then giving up civil liberties but i think its worth it in the long run.

 

[Smurf]

The right to kill is not a civil liberty and its rather disgusting that so many people think they deserve it. It's also scary, but security is hardly the main opposition.

More after class...

 

[Townsend]

The right to kill is not a civil liberty and its rather disgusting that so many people think they deserve it. It's also scary, but security is hardly the main opposition.

More after class...

I don't think I have a right to kill but I do have a right to not be killed and if one of two people MUST be killed then it should be the person who WANTS to do the killing that should be killed and not the person who just wants to live.

I suppose it's just a matter of perspective...from your perspective I guess that a person should just sit there while their murderer kills them and then hope that the police catch the person and that they are put in prison so they don't continue to kill other people. And that is fine if you believe that Smurf. You are entitled to act on your beliefs, all that I am asking is that you take a reasonable look at my beliefs and then tell me that you're perspective is the correct one that everyone should have to follow.

 

[Townsend]

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

I believe that tiny little increased risk of being killed is more than worth it if it means I can keep the right to bear arms. If you took away all the guns in the world it really doesn't give me a much better chance to live...it hardly makes any difference at all.

If freedoms mean nothing to you and all you want is to save lives then why take away a freedom that hardly kills very many people at all? You could take away people's right to eat whatever they want...Americans are fat and we have a very high risk of death due to it. Make America leaner and you will save many more lives than taking guns out of our homes. Make smoking illegal and you will save many times the number of people who die from guns.

The point is, is guns are a liberty...they are something we would have a right to unless the government took it away. It is not something that we have because of the government. More restrictions on Fast food, cigarettes, man crushing SUV's, more difficult to impossible drivers license test are all liberties that can be taken away to save lives. What gives a person more right to kill me in one way but not another? If it has any thing to do with the probability of me being killed then guns should be the last thing to go...

Regards

 

[deckart]

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

It follows that having very tough gun laws (including shooting people in self defence) and removing a "Gun culture" from a country decrease the deadly faitality rate...

The only problem with implementing this in America is that you crossed the line many years ago, and Guns and gun culture is engrained into your Psyche.

The right to bear arms is a right our country was founded on. And that will never change.

 

[Anttech]

I believe that tiny little increased risk of being killed is more than worth it if it means I can keep the right to bear arms. If you took away all the guns in the world it really doesn't give me a much better chance to live...it hardly makes any difference at all.

This is almost propogander... all evidence points the other way, there isn't a "tiny little increased risk" there is a much larger posibilty of being shot at. Just think logically for one moment. If everyone in a country of 100Million is armed, and in another country of 100Million hardley anyone is armed, do you think there is a larger or small chance of being shot?

Anyway I also have the right to not be shot, which is a very much larger right that to bear arms... Its an outdated right, and there is no need for it...

Towsend, why not just have anarchy then? then you will be totally free to do whatever you like...

The right to bear arms is a right our country was founded on. And that will never change.

Not disputing it...

 

[Townsend]

This is almost propogander... all evidence points the other way, there isn't a "tiny little increased risk" there is a much larger posibilty of being shot at.

I believe it was somewhere between 15 to 20K people killed last year. I cannot say for sure but I do know it pales in comparison to the risk I have of dieing due to the other things I mentioned here.
Here is an anti-gun look at the numbers and you can see even from a pessimistic point of view the risk is almost non-existent.
http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html
I actually have a better chance of winning 10,000 dollars on a scratch ticket than I do of being killed by a gun. It's hardly even a risk at all. I have no fear of being shoot...non at all and everyone around me has guns, guns and more guns. Thousand upons thousand of guns and yet I have no fear. I am however scared to death of the idiot kids they let drive these jacked up monster trucks. I have had to do some fancy driving to avoid being crushed twice this year already. Yet during no time of my life have I ever had to worry about being shot. So being killed by a gun is something that is so unlikely that I just don't worry about it.

Just think logically for one moment. If everyone in a country of 100Million is armed, and in another country of 100Million hardley anyone is armed, do you think there is a larger or small chance of being shot?

Sure, but since the chances of being shot are so small already that it hardly makes any difference at all. Does it even add up to one half of one percent difference?

Anyway I also have the right to not be shot, which is a very much larger right that to bear arms... Its an outdated right, and there is no need for it...

That is why it is not legal to shoot people. And whether or not guns are legal does not mean that you will or will not be shot.

Towsend, why not just have anarchy then? then you will be totally free to do whatever you like...

Because you would not be free, you would be ruled by whoever had the biggest guns. As it is we have guns and I am much safer with them than I am with fast food or kids driving or drunk drivers and what have you. Guns pose so little risk to me that except for the fact that I would lose my favorite sport, I wouldn't even notice if they were gone. I would still be scared of teenage idiots racing around town at 40 mph over the speed limit in a residential area where kids play and are killed by the tens or thousand each year. And banning guns would have done nothing about the real risk of being killed, nothing at all.

 

[Smurf]

I suppose it's just a matter of perspective...from your perspective I guess that a person should just sit there while their murderer kills them and then hope that the police catch the person and that they are put in prison so they don't continue to kill other people. And that is fine if you believe that Smurf. You are entitled to act on your beliefs, all that I am asking is that you take a reasonable look at my beliefs and then tell me that you're perspective is the correct one that everyone should have to follow.

No... it's not. This is the kind of appeal to emotions and over-simplification that gets these laws passed in the first place.

GAH! I can't respond to that. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THAT SORT - THAT'S ALL COMPLETE BULL****.

**** this, is there any sense at all in trying to argue a legal matter with a bunch of trigger-happy yanks? Any what so ever? Have any of you even considered the legal and social ramifications of this law?

THIS BILL IS CHALLENGING THE RULE OF LAW BUT YOU'RE ALL SO HAPPY YOU GET A BIGGER CHANCE TO KILL PEOPLE YOU DON'T ****ING CARE HOW DYSFUNCTION YOUR GOVERNMENT BECOMES. God forbid should they limit your killing rights. ****** ******.

 

[Smurf]

Seriously, does anyone in this thread actually care about any of the real affects this law will have? If someone actually does please let me know I'd love to try and gain some insight if someone will be even slightly intellectual about it.

 

[Townsend]

No... it's not. This is the kind of appeal to emotions and over-simplification that gets these laws passed in the first place.

GAH! I can't respond to that. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THAT SORT - THAT'S ALL COMPLETE BULL****.

**** this, is there any sense at all in trying to argue a legal matter with a bunch of trigger-happy yanks? Any what so ever? Have any of you even considered the legal and social ramifications of this law?

THIS BILL IS CHALLENGING THE RULE OF LAW BUT YOU'RE ALL SO HAPPY YOU GET A BIGGER CHANCE TO KILL PEOPLE YOU DON'T ****ING CARE HOW DYSFUNCTION YOUR GOVERNMENT BECOMES. God forbid should they limit your killing rights. ****** ******.

Go take a prozac you freak-a-zoid...

There is nothing at all wrong with my argument. The fact of the matter is that if you lived in America and someone broke into your house and got a splinter in their hand they could sue the pants off of you. All this law is suppose to do is to protect the victim...

This law is really simple...if you believe you should not be able to kill someone to prevent them from killing you then it is a bad law. If you believe you should be able to kill someone so you are not going to be killed by them then this is a good law.

What else is there to say?

 

[Townsend]

Seriously, does anyone in this thread actually care about any of the real affects this law will have? If someone actually does please let me know I'd love to try and gain some insight if someone will be even slightly intellectual about it.

Clearly you don't know what the real life effects of this law will be. In reality it will make almost no difference to anyone...

 

[deckart]

I don't understand what the issue is. The law simply lays out some common sense self-defense issues that probably held up the courts because it was not defined before the law was passed.

If you don't want to protect yourself, then don't. If someone has to shoot an intruder in their own home to protect themselves, what's the issue? I don't get it?

These kind of laws will help to prevent such situations in the first place. When criminals realize that entering a citizens home in a way that threatens that citizen could cost them their life, it may very well deter them from even considering it.

 

[Smurf]

There is nothing at all wrong with my argument. The fact of the matter is that if you lived in America and someone broke into your house and got a splinter in their hand they could sue the pants off of you. All this law is suppose to do is to protect the victim...

Does it though? You could get sued for injuring a burglar before even if they were getting convicted of armed robbery at the same time. This is a criminal law, will it affect civil courts at all? And of course, is it the most effective way to do it?

This law is really simple...if you believe you should not be able to kill someone to prevent them from killing you then it is a bad law. If you believe you should be able to kill someone so you are not going to be killed by them then this is a good law.

Again, this over-simplification is the kind of corrupt argument that is the reason your country has these problems in the first place. If your policy makers think the same way you do it's no wonder these bills get passed.

What else is there to say?

Hmmm maybe that self defence was already a legal defence? You could discuss the other possible ramifications such as the implication that persons are less valuable than possessions? A possible theory on how consumerism has affected this mindset? Was there even any cases where a person was convicted for killing in self defence before? You might actually ask yourself wether this law was even necessary?

YOU MIGHT EVEN CONSIDER that this law undermines the judicial position. That it takes power from appointed, trained, impartial courts with tried and true methods of determining innocents and puts it into the hands of the same individuals that shout "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" Every time they see someone get punched in the face? You might actually realize that this law applies to you AND the criminal. That if you sneak up on someone you might get shot. That, by your own insistance, it is more likely you will get shot by a "criminal" than by anyone else, and that this law protects them if they do?

Considering it's affects on civil law is another one of course pointed out by yourself.

Stop being daft this is unnecessary simplification and you should know that.