Manx

Your gun argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (beyond the fact that the argument is purely weak - a comparison of Vermont to D.C.? Hardly compelling evidence, even were it to pertain to the topic). Criminals may consider a an armed populace as less appealing marks - but that argument has nothing to do with whether criminals consider the probability that a mark will weigh the risks of being arrested or sued for defending themselves. I don't believe a mark would ever do that and I don't believe a criminal would ever stop and consider whether a mark would ever do that.

Of course people wait before defending themselves - this is born of the desire NOT TO KILL. That is as it should be. But whether they do or do not wait is irrespective of whether they should be questioned on the matter.

ziadel

No one in their right minds wants to kill. But the desire to live is so much stronger than any aversion to killing. That is as it should be.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

dksuddeth

manx, you are avoiding the whole reason that this law was made.
Before, a person had to do everything possible to avoid being assaulted....run, hide, yell for help. only then, when all had been done, THEN could the intended victim use deadly force. If it was deemed that the intended victim had NOT run, hidden, yelled for help, they WOULD be prosecuted.

why do you think they changed the law? they were prosecuting people for defending themselves.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

Just in case it is worth mentioning the law we are supposedly discussing, I'd like to point out again that it deals with using any force at all, not just deadly force. It also is not a blanket authorization for using deadly force. Most assuredly you would not walk away 20 minutes later if you killed someone, no matter what the circumstance.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ilow

Frankly I'm somewhat surprised that Manx has continued this discussion as long as he has.
There is practically nothing right with the scenario outlined here, granted it's a little thin on the details. "looking it over"=shot and possibly killed. I think it is a safe assumption that the poster would have mentioned if there had been any other threatening behavior etc. by the person with the shotgun (i.e. pointing it at him etc.) so I am assuming that there was none. Regardless, for you to laud local law enforcement for "patting him on the back" and sending him on his way is absurd. Maybe he was justified and maybe he wasn't but he should have at least seen the inside of a courtroom for a grand jury to decide. Shoot first, ask questions later is a stone age mentality, and i can't believe that there is a current debate about it.
Also, the more you continue to cite Vermont, the less I'm inclined to think that you've been there. If you look a little deeper into the Vermont culture I think you'll find that the reason for the low crime rate is more due to the homogeneity of the population and other socioeconomic factors, not the fact that all the hippies are packing. Also, most states with few large urban areas and relatively low population density have lower crime rates, for many factors that I'm not going into right now.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Manx

I haven't avoided anything. From my first post I have been discussing the reality of the exact claim you are making. I have not seen one shred of evidence that any significant quantity of people were being prosecuted for protecting themselves. So I do not accept that as "the reason" for this legislation.

ziadel

then what is the reason for this legislation exactly manx?

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

The_Dunedan

Manx;
Such stories are routinely "spiked" by the media. Two cases that I know of;

NYC: A Marine 2nd Looey, home on leave, defended his family using an unregistered pistol. He had been turned down for a pistol-permit because, on account of his duty-station at Cherry Point, he was not a New York "resident" despite the fact that his family lived there. He was convicted of manslaughter, posession of an unregistered handgun, and several lesser crimes; convictions which could have landed him in prison for 30 years. Because of massive public outcry, he only served a few days, but was hit with 5 year's Probation and is now barred from ever posessing any firearm, as he is now a Felon.

2: Ohio ( can't remember the city name; may have been Dayton ): A man in his early 80s found himself in similar circumstances after he shot two muggers off a friend of his. His friend had been attacked outside the door of the apartment building they shared, and the man in question fired several shots from a .22 pistol, killing one attacker and wounding the other. He was likewise prosecuted for Manslaughter and convicted. Due to his age, he also recieved probation.

Manx, this stuff happens every day. Check keepandbeararms.com sometime if you don't believe me; not a week goes by that they don't report someone being arrested or tried for defending themselvs from violent attack. The nat'l media "spike" these stories because they are, every one of them, without exception, victim-disarmament advocates. Those media companies that aren't owned/funded by George Soros, a rabid anti-rights nutjob, are owned/funded by Rupert Murdoch, who is just as bad if not worse.

ziadel

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...0398/1002/NEWS

hey, theres one! and its not even a week old, and its in NY!


how much you think hes paying in legal fees?

because if we had that law up here, he wouldnt have had to shell out that money for lawyers.

omg, heres another!
http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2883548

oh my. whats this? a man whos been in jail for 8 years because he used a firearm to defend himself? tsk tsk.

http://www.kypost.com/2005/02/11/kymcclane021105.html

I could go on, but ya know what, I've satisfied myself.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Manx

I'm not going to accept two examples and a website called Keep And Bear Arms as evidence that there is a significant amount of people being convicted of a crime for defending themselves.

ziadel - Your example consists of a man who was involved in an argument. I don't have all the facts of the case and I expect you do not either - but it is not at all a stretch of the imagination to believe that the DA felt the man was likely an agressor in the entire event. He is fortunate to have been aquitted, but I don't see any reason to presume he never should have been tried. Nor do I see how this Florida legislation would have altered the outcome of that event or the potentiallity of trial.

edit: Your further examples are nothing more than the exceptions which prove the rule. There are also entirely innocent people convicted of crimes - that is certainly not a valid reason to eliminate law. The vast majority of cases involve actual criminals and not innocent people. I would expect the same principle to hold in cases involving defense. The vast majority of cases involving people who were actually defending themselves do not go to trial/get dismissed/return an acquittal - and the vast majority of cases involving people who were actually an aggressor or instigator while claiming to simply be defending themselves, result in a conviction.

Manx

Here's my theory:

The reason for this law is that there are a lot of Florida legislators who think as you: that people being attacked are overly limited in their options. That there is no evidence that this is true and that instead of supplying evidence, you have supplied emotionally-appealing, exceptionally rare and certainly questionable "examples" doesn't seem to have any bearing on the quantity of legislators making these types of baseless decisions.

In other words, like you, many Florida legislators have convinced themselves that there is a problem where there is no problem and have enacted laws to fix this non-existent problem. In the process, they, as you, are advocating violence over avoidance.

ziadel

*sigh* the man really was right, there are only sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs in this world.

Have no fear Manx, I won't let the wolves take you


well, heres the deal, they're elected officials, they make choices, if they're bad choices, they are voted out. if they make good choices, they remain in office. time will tell exactly what floridians think about the new legislature, but my guess is that the people who worked to make this proposition and those who voted it into law will have many many grateful constituents who will reward them with lengthy stays in their elected offices.

but this really has been done to death, and at this point, I think I will just have to agree to disagree and retreat to the safety of TF Weaponry



but, every time a man is arrested for defending himself, or his loved ones, I will be informing you of it privately.

mebbe a year from now after a few hundred exmaples, you will see things my way.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Manx

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing by making such a strange claim that you are protecting me.

You don't know me. You don't know where I live. You know essentially nothing about me.

But if it makes you feel tough to make the absurd claim that you are protecting me from something, I guess you might need to think you are protecting me from something.

moosenose

Heh. Let YOU be prosecuted for murder in a self-defense situation and see if you THEN don't think it's a problem...

moosenose

Do you live in a State with "Shall Issue" or "May Issue" CCW? Because if you do, you are indeed receiving some protection that you wouldn't have in a "No Issue" state because people have CCW permits. In economics, it's called being a "free rider".

moosenose

You don't have much experience with the legal system, do you...

Grand Juries normally do what they're told to do by the prosecutors. Prosecutors generally are looking to make a name for themselves to advance their careers. If the police look at a shooting and say "this was indisputably justified", why should the victim be forced in front of a grand jury? (And by victim, I mean the shooter....since the shooter was victimized to the point that he or she had to defend their lives.)

Why should homicide be any different from any other crime? You DO realize that the police routinely refuse to file charges in all kinds of cases, don't you? That's just ONE of the protections we all have against abuse of process.

What this law is meant to stop is abuse of prosecutorial discretion....when prosecutors bring charges that they shouldn't. I'd like to point out that a great many states have similar laws in place already, and there's been no bloodbath in those places.

I'd bet that you just don't like the idea of you going out and starting shit, and then risking being shot legally...."There is nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."--Frank Herbert, "The White Plague"

The_Dunedan

Manx,
keepandbeararms.com doesn't exactly make this stuff up, you know. They're a "news clearinghouse" site; every day ( except Sundays ) they have a huge collection ( 100+ links, on most days ) worth of gun-rights related news, collected from "mainstream" media around the world. They aren't pulling this stuff out of their arseholes, much as you'd obviously like to think they were. Unlike the drek spewed by the likes of The Brady Bunch or the VPC, all of their information is heavily sourced and easily verifiable; not to mention not being outright lies such as those that Victim Disarmament groups like to use.

As for your "emotionally based" slam, you haven't exactly got any room to complain. Your entire arguement has been based upon "I don't see it, so it doesn't happen." This is the same rationale as that of a child who thinks that covering his eyes makes whatever-it-is that frightens him disappear; "If I can't see it, it's not there." You asked for examples; they were provided. Your response was "Not the right examples." and "Not enough examples." Instead of actually addressing the points that have been made, you hace decided to evade them and attack either their sources or to simply insist, in spite of the evidence, that "there is no problem." This is called "Denial."

As for "Avoidance," as you put it; every instructor I've ever met teaches their students to avoid conflict if possible. They tell you not to goto obviously sketchy places, don't confront belligerant people, etc etc; IOW, not to go looking for trouble. However, if trouble finds you, which it sadly does in our world, I fail to see any reason why anyone should be required to retreat, thereby placing themselves at a tactical disadvantage. I, after all, am not a sociopathic predator; the jackass trying to divest me of my wallet is, or he wouldn't be robbing me. I fail to see why I, or any other honest person, should be required to accomodate any such creature by running away. Such is the attitude of a coward, a person lacking in both dignity and moral fortitude.

raveneye

It would be very easy for Florida to make a law similar to that of Oregon, which differentiates between aggressors and non-aggressors and specifically requires aggressors to retreat or withdraw, without success, before escalating the force used.

But the Florida bill does not (as far as I can see). So, again, this legislation theoretically seems to allow any argument to gradually escalate to any degree of force, as the combatants respond to each other, and have no obligation to retreat.

cj2112

Oregon law does not require to retreat, that was the entire point of my post. If you assault somebody, you go to jail, if you defend yourself from such an attack, you may still be detained, but if it was legitimately self defense, then you will be released. Again, you are NOT required to attempt to flee, talk your way out of the situation or do the hokey pokey. I agree that you should avoid the conflict, but sometimes you are forced to either defend yourself or become a victim, the new Florida law allows for that reality.

raveneye

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 161:

Lebell

Raveneye,

I don't see that what you highlighted makes any difference.

What that says is that if you are attacking someone and then you withdraw, they may not continue to attack you in the name of self defense.

That is pretty much standard wording from what I personally know of self defense statutes.

And it has nothing to do with the proposed Florida statute.

In the Florida case, it is specifying that if you are being attacked (active, present tense), you are not required to retreat in order to defend yourself.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Manx

I'm not claiming keepandbeararms.com makes anything up. There is a vast difference between making something up and culling information that suits an agenda. If the reports they cull regarding prosecutions for defensive actions are anything like those reports culled by ziadel, they're nothing more than the prosecution of people claiming to have used their gun in self-defense. It may sound scary to you - but since you WANT to believe the individual arrested was only acting in self-defense, I should expect it would sound scary to you. I don't care either way - so to me it sounds like DAs who do not believe the claim of the defendent - in other words: par for the course.

In regards to emotionally based arguments. Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing. You have not listed any studies of wrongful prosecution that demonstrate that people unequivocally involved in defensive measures are being significantly prosecuted. Instead, you are relying on the word of a defendent as to their guilt or non-guilt, as reported to you by a website called Keep and Bear Arms. As long as you desire to use such non-evidence as the purpose for changing laws, you will be arguing from an emotional level, void of relevancy.

I'm not sure what instructors and what instructors teach have to do with this discussion.

Dignity and moral fortitude? Is that what you call crazy? Given the option of avoiding a violent situation or partaking in a violent situation, anyone who chooses the latter is crazy - not dignified or morally strong. Any rational person who is unfortunate enough to have had trouble find them will attempt to avoid the situation. You added the word "required" where it never existed in an attempt to claim that such a person is then prevented from defending his/herself if they needed to. People are not prevented from defending themselves - which is why this legislation is a solution to a non-problem, advocating violent resolutions over non-violent resolutions.

raveneye

I think if you re-read the statute, you'll see that the second part limits the rights of the initiator to claim self defense when being attacked by other participants in the fight. It says nothing about the rights of the other participants. It is only about the rights of the initial aggressor.

Yep. Even if you were the initial aggressor, in the middle of a fight. That's my point.

smooth

your examples are not only non-compelling (neither person went to prison, which was your original contention--that people were innocently languishing away in prison for defending themselves) but they are also inconsistent with your claim that such stories are "spiked" by the media. Or does "massive public outcry" just occur without media attention, in your opinion?


Now, in answer to your question as to why this law was passed, you think that just because a law is passed that is sufficient evidence that there is a problem? That's bizarre reasoning. Laws are passed in response to vocal minorities. Whatever else they may be formed from, they are certainly not based on scientific evidence. Most people in this thread don't even give a shit what academics have to say about the issue. None of what you're referencing would stand up to the mildest statistical scrutiny--as Manx tried to point out to you.

Are you under the assumption that Oregon doesn't require people to run away before defending themselves, but florida does?

Why do you think raveneye thought that Oregon law did? Where do you think these types of legal cocnsiousness comes from--that people can't defend themselves in these states?

Like you, legislatures believe their constituents that people are being unfairly sent to prison for self-defense (although your examples clearly showed they were not, so I don't know why you thought they were helpful) and that they aren't able to adequately defend themselves (which they are, the law doesn't require that people run away from overt, and inescapable threats, but that reasonable measures are taken before lethal action is taken). That is the social context within which bad laws are passed that serve few people. Even if the legislatures aren't voted out, that doesn't signifiy the laws they pass are good. That's ridiculous, too. Most people won't ever experience this legislation in their day to day lives. They may or may not care, but they certainly won't be ranking it very high on their list of reasons to vote given that the law is already passed and it doesn't do anything to them. Most likely, you will have a small group of citizens who will vote FOR the legislatures for passing this, but not many who care AGAINST it. And then it becomes very clear why politicians vote the way they do--to obtain votes from their constituents. If you think they are altruistic, why are you thinking Manx is naive?

By the way, how many times have you had to shoot someone?
And how much personal experience do you have with the legal ramifications of using lethal force to defend yourself?
Defending oneself does not equal killing the person. So while you don't have to run away from a real threat at all costs, that isn't an automatic licesnse to kill someone over what you think is reasonable. The law is and never was like that. It's what a jury finds a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. And if you think the shooter has or is able to determine that for him or herself, you will be in for a very rude awakening if you ever do stand trial and your only defense is that you believed your life was in jeopardy.


http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
It's probably important that some of you differentiate between defending oneself and leaving a situation. If you can leave a situation, you are expected to. That doesn't mean you have to leave instead of defending yourself when you can't leave. If someone pulls out a knife and threatens you from down the street, walk (back) away. How do you justify in your mind that someone pissed off and inebriated deserves to be killed for being an asshole for a few minutes? If someone is overtly threatenening you with deadly force, you don't have to back up while he or she is sticking the blade in you--which is what you seem to be implying when you make the claim that you can't defend yourself and must run away at all costs. When someon comes at you with a weapon, you're still a few steps away from needing to kill the person. Any self-defense class worth its salt will have already taught you that if you are really in this situation and it could have been avoided, you have already done multiple things wrong yourself.

And none of this applies to seeing someone else being attacked with force. You can use force in their shoes. You aren't forced to run away then.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

moosenose

You seem to miss the point....You don't have to be sent to a PMITA prison to be victimized by the criminal justice system...being tried when innocent is a trial in and of itself.

smooth

That's all you were able to tease out of my post?

I don't miss the point, you just don't agree with my points.
EDIT: here's my point reiterated in bold: this law isn't going to result in more murders, it's not going to result in less murders. it's going to result in a vocal minority becoming agitated about a non-issue: that their right to defend themselves is at risk. That paranoid minority is going to vote for the people it thinks is defending it's non-jeopardized ability to defend themselves. That's the reason for this bill: To churn the waters so conversations like this thread will turn to gun control and gun owners wil feel persecuted by urban dwellers who live in high crime areas when they explain to them that carrying guns doesn't make them feel or become more safe from street crime.

FYI, everyone going through the trial stage is an innocent person.
Are you seriously going to contend that all persons tried are victimized by the criminal justice system?

Regardless, grand jury indictements (which the accused does not attend) are hardly victimizing processes. All of those cases listed, as are over 90% of all criminal cases, were completed via plea bargains. If the cases were as strong as you seem to believe they were, they should have gone to trial. I should mention that a preliminary reading of the cases indicate that their probation was a result of breaking the law in some other fasion, not actually the act of defending themselves. In the first case, the man used an unregistered firearm. Now you may think it's a silly requirement and a technicality that he couldn't obtain registration, but he chose to use an illegally held firearm and ought to be held responsible for that. His and his family's life was worth enough to break the law, fair enough. He's a felon. He's alive. Decisions we make and consequences we live with.

If one member of society kills another human being, I think it's a reasonable demand to make that he or she lay out the facts and circumstances before his or her peers in order to ascertain whether the killing was justified. How else do you propose to seperate the legitimate killings from illegitimate ones?

I looked at another of your links. I can't believe you would actually use this person as your poster boy of people "victimized" by the judicial process:

The reason he was convicted was due to inadequate council, not because of rampant anti-self defense legislation. The reason he wasn't re-convicted, however, doesn't appear to be innocence, but rather the fact that the victim (the man who was shot in the back--after being maced and verbally assaulted, testimony corroberated by witnesses) couldn't be located for the retrial. I'm reading the account of his demeanor and it doesn't substaniate what you implied--that he is just a normal citizen caught in the maw of the criminal justice system.

I'm looking through this thread and seeing a lot of disinformation. If it's not intentional, then you should re-think your position. The accused does not testify before the grand jury. The accused is not forced to take a plea bargain. People are not being locked up wholesale for reasonably defending themselves. It doesn't matter what you think of the sitation--you weren't present. The best system we have, indeed touted as the best system in the world, is a jury trial process. And reasonable is defined by what those twelve citizens think a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. If you can't live with that, don't carry and don't kill people attacking you.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

I also feel the need to inject some perspective into this discussion about the wide generalizations some of you are making comparing state crime stats to one another. It doesn't make much sense to compare California crime to Florida crime. For one thing, there is huge disparity between population sizes, types, and even regional.

For example, all of California operates under the same strict gun regulations. Yet, there are only a few regions, low-income, dense urban environments, that account for those high stats. I can compare Compton to anyplace, Florida or I can compare Irvine to anyplace, Florida. Which one is going to have the lowest crime rate? If guns solely accounted for the difference, the per capita rate of crime/murder should be the same. It isn't.

Next, many of you argue that possessing firearms prevents crime/murder of innocent people. Well, while that most assuradely occurs, the stats you are reading about are not innocent people or regular joes and janets being accosted and killed. The most frequent murder victim is a young, urban black male. The most common perpetrator: the same. Violence occurs between members of the same race and class, with occasional crossovers.

It will be a rare day, statistically speaking, when any of you rural dwellers need to pull a gun for safety against an threatening criminal--unless you're arguing in a bar or back alley and the situation escalates to violence.

When you make comments like only criminals have guns, yes, true, but they rarely kill anyone else. So you need to look at a complexity of issues, not whether a particular region allows weapons to be carried or not. So when you arm a bunch of people in suburban Texas, I have no doubt that crime goes down in those particular places. But if you start arming californians, you'll get a bunch of gunslingers in rural sacramento, hollywood, and san diego. people in compton and more dense urban centers are already armed and killing one another. Not much is going to decrease in the overall crime averages. That's the consequence of living in a city with 30 million people. There are highly concentrated locii of violence and crime. Arming people in the rest of the state isn't going to dent those averages. There are better ways to reduce violence than arguing arming and training citizens will resolve our culture's preoccupation with violence as a dispute resolution.

So you take Grants Pass as an example. You have 20, 000 people. How many murders this year? I think it's 0, but I haven't looked. Counting from here until last year, I will be able to count them on one hand. And none of them are a result of some regular person being accosted in a back alley. Any murder in that town is likely over meth--and both the victim and the killer would have had access to firearms.

But if gun weilding fixes the problem, why the high crime rate in Portland?
Why the low rate in say, Lake Oswego, but the high rate in the inner city?
I'm just pointing out that you may be using too broad of a brush.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

scout

You said all there needs to be said about this argument in your first paragraph. Gun control should be handled on a local level and not handled by the federal government. Some places may feel the need to limit access to firearms in a particularly high crime area in the inner city. Most rural folks that hunt and have grown up with guns in the home don't necessarily need the same rules and regulations that are needed in more densely populated areas. Perhaps even statewide is to large of an area and it needs to be broken down into a county by county basis. I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about what's happening in Florida. I'm quite sure if there is a rash of "murders" the law will be amended to clarify what's considered self defense. And if in fact it is a "vocal minority" pushing this legislation the next election will reflect this and we will see some new faces and a new make-up of the legislature. Frankly, unless you live there its none of your business. Apparently the Florida legislature and its constituents feel this is needed legislation and the government is working as it should on the state level. Good for them!! Finally a legislature that listens to the voice of the people. I wish the same thing would happen here in the state of Indiana on other issues not necessarily pertaining to gun control.

raveneye

This Florida legislation was motivated by a case of self-defense in the home in which the defender got a prison sentence (but was pardoned) even thouth the state Supreme Court eventually reversed the decision and found that no retreat requirement exists within your home. The bill's original purpose was to clarify in statute that there is no requirement to retreat when you are in your own home.

But in response to the gun lobby (NRA mainly), Republicans decided to try to slip in the same language for self defense in public places. They introduced the same wording to eliminate the retreat requirement also in public places.

This is a major change in Florida law. Most Floridians don't support it. It was already tried back when Askew was governor, and he voted it down.

Again, there are two major problems with this legislation: (1) its conditions for the use of deadly force are far too vague and permissive; (2) it makes no distinction whatsoever between initiators of force and non-initiators, in public places.

There are several other more minor probems, such as the fact that as written it is contradictory and poorly phrased and organized, doesn't expressly prohibit pre-arranged conflicts (though these might be covered elsewhere, who knows).

But the major problems should be enough for oppose this legislation. Even cowboy red states such as Montana have explicit retreat requirements at least for initiators of force, whose purpose is to break the cycle of escalation, and disallow self defense claims for people who knowingly and purposely provoke the use of force.

smooth

Thanks for the clarification, raveneye.
I should have been more clear, if my post came across as claiming that legislation such as this is spawned by a vocal minority.
That wasn't my intent.

What I meant was that more than likely one isolated, highly publicized incident likely spawned this legislation (as you have now pointed out). Other cases might occur, but the catalyst is often one anomalous incident.

Such as the case in Terry Shiavo. Many people are in her condition, but only her name becomes law.

Such as the case with the the 6 year old shot with a tazer in a florida school. More kids probably were affected, but only his case became symbolic of a social "problem."

Why the hell does this happen in florida. I'm just kidding. That's how legislation works. Such as the case with Megan's law, such as the case with three strikes law, such is the case...I hope you all get the point.

Then people begin to rally around it and that's when the catering begins--the vocal minority, as I called them, start chattering and the press picks their chatter up and it suddenly looks like it's a widespread problem. Meanwhile, the rest of the population is busy going to work.

That isn't to say that vocal minorities cause legislation, but that they amp it up and often turn local debates and issues into national agendas. Such is politics, but I digress.

The point to remember is that bad law is enacted all the time that is supposed to address some social problem. However, social scientists are rarely, if ever, consulted on whether something actually is a problem and whether the legislation would appropriately address it. If there wasn't so much agitation against academics, the damn policies enacted might make sense and actually work. They might not, but who knows--the general public doesn't trust the people who credentialed them to even pay attention to what they're saying.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

raveneye

Amen to that.

BTW, for anybody who's interested in the case that started the rallying cry in Florida, here's a FindLaw link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script..._91925&invol=1

MSD

I do not live my life in such a way that I provoke violence. I have been punched with brass knuckles and been able to fend off the attacker with an enraged look and tha ability to remain standing. I did not lift a hand to fight back, but I was able to end the situation. I have ended several fights in which participants tried to involve me without using any more force than was required to separate the particapants and test the upper limits of what my voice can do. Judging by this, I thik that we can all agree that I am not the kind of person who provokes violence or lives a violent lifestyle.

Several weeks ago, I was a few yards away from an attempted robbery. I was in the middle of a good part of the city, only two blocks toward the business district from a college campus, and a whole lot of people who do not live lives that provoke violence were subjected to a situation in which a criminal with obvious malicious intent swept teh crowd with a loaded gun (which, I might add, was imported and sold to him illegally, where gun control could not stop him from obtaining the weapon.) Fortunately, the idiot did this two blocks from a police station (and three blocks from another) and nobody was shot. If the police had not responded in less than half a minute, that criminal easily could have escalated the situation to the point where a responsible, armed citizen would have had to subdue him to save a lot of innocent people.

You may also remember an incident about three or four weeks ago that made national news. An armed robber shot and killed two jewelers in Fairfield, CT. The Donnellys were unarmed, and because of this, they were both killed in cold blood. I had met them previously, and they were two of the nicest people you could imagine. I pride myself (maybe wrongly) on being desensetized to almost everything, but when I saw security camera footage of Mrs. Donnelly on her knees pleading for the robber not to shoot her, I knew what I was seeing, and I was physically ill after seeing that. If even one of them had been armed, a man who had killed several people before in robberies that he carried out to support his drug habit would be dead instead of two innocent people who remind everyone of their favority aunt and uncle or grandparents. If one person walking by had been armed, he or she could have saved those innocent people, even if he or she didn't feel the need to own a gun because they live in this town where yearly violent crimes (aside from the occasional high school fight or drunken bar fight) can be counted on one hand.

I live, work, and go to school in safe areas where the necessity of owning and carrying a gun is comparable to the necessity of owning a luxury car. I have not been in a fight once in my life. I have had several one-hit incidents, but I have never hit back. I don't take unnecessary risks like walking aroudn bad areas after dark. I still feel that owning and carrying a gun is safer than not doing so.

smooth

While the scenario you described is certainly tragic, I think it's important to seperate causal inference from speculation.

You premise this paragraph on the assumption that the couple was killed because they were unarmed, and later that others in the area weren't armed. I want to point out that neither you nor I will ever know if the situation would have been different had the people been armed. We also don't know how this relates to the millions of people robbed without being killed--possibly because they weren't armed, or possibly due to luck or whathaveyou.

The only causal statement we can accurately make, with certainty, in this scenario is that the couple died as a result of someone being armed with a gun. So while your statements seem to make sense, and resonate with myself and no doubt others, they can not be made to relay a truth from this story. There is no overarching moral to this story suggesting that armed victims or populace would have de-escalated the situation you described. The speculations confirm your suspicions, but that's about all they do in this situation. Not much to be done about it, it's not as though we can really do a pre and post test of these kinds of interations--so we need to look to quasi-experimentation and see what the literature says rather than create social policy as a response to heartwrenching stories and speculation on what could have changed the interaction.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

F-18_Driver

Social policy as a response to heartwrenching stories and speculation is exactly how we wound up with most of our gun laws.

Two prime examples are Dianne Feinstein and Sara Brady, and all of the harm they've done.

Kadath

Well, part of me says the emphasized section above is true, in that it is never necessary to own a luxury car; it is simply something you desire for comfort. The other part of me rails against the idea that you could compare the necessity of a car to that of a firearm.

However.

Thanks to the concerted and untiring efforts of the gun lobby in protecting the Second Amendment to the Constitution, you are free to carry a gun. As I am free not to. Let us live and let live...especially the one of us with a weapon.

__________________
it's quiet in here

EULA

All Ketucky officeholders – from the governor in Frankfort to constables in the farthest reaches of the Commonwealth – must renounce dueling. Before lawmakers can be formally seated, they must affirm – usually with some snickering in the audience – that they “have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it.”

questone

Funny, we have all these Patriot Act laws and we are fearful of terrorism but we want to arm the whole population.

MSD

I realize that I can't make any sort of definitive statement, but had the people been armed, they may have at least have had a chance to fight back and survive.

I will live and let live, unless someone is refusing to do the same for the rest of us. If I came across a person attacking someone in a way that could only be stopped with lethal force, I would not hesitate to use such force to save an inocent life.

Numerous suicide bombers in Israel have been prevented from carrying out attacks against civilian targets by those who legally carry concealed weapons. The terrorists who have attacked us in the past have targeted and killed civilians; very rarely does a person who legally owns a gun use it to massacre the innocent.