Plan9

Correct me if I'm stupid, but that's the whole intent of the Castle Doctrine legislation and the whole home invasion issue: DON'T DO IT. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. YOU MIGHT DIE. Why do we feel like people that violate the rights of others to such a huge degree need such outlandish protections from the rather natural consequences of this type of crime? I'm all for the "guilty until proven innocent" bit in court, but if somebody I don't know just smashed my garage window and is in my living room holding something that could be a lethal weapon... I figure his rights just evaporated until the circumstances change. I won't go down stairs with guns blazing but I won't feel any remorse for killing him should I have to shoot. Nobody shoots a gun to wound an attacker. A firearm is a lethal weapon and should be treated and used as such. If I have to shoot somebody? They're going to die. Do I like this? Not at all. Am I okay with this in self-defense? Certainly.

Remember now: With everything in the legal world (and life in general), these Castle Doctrines have to be applied to the least common denominator of those who would have to use them. Most women and the elderly aren't inclined to wrestle young male intruders. It's cool to be all bravado-balls and talk about home invasions where you'll Jackie Chan some guy in the dark... but let's be realistic here. American Gladiators we are not. You and I aren't the only type of person on the planet... combative males. Home invading bad guys would be wise to target the single moms and lonely grandmas of the world and the law has to work for the defense option that these type of people can exercise...


Don't get me wrong: I really do believe in the supreme value of human life. I don't want to hurt anybody. I also believe, however, said value fluctuates based on choices.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Tophat665

Lots of good points there.

I understand completely that castle doctrine is intended to have a deterrant effect, and I suspect that the primary results of castle doctrine, after a couple of well publicized court cases, will be to 1) Increase the number of firearms in private homes, and 2) lower the instances of buglary and home invasion. The secondary results are going to be 1) a spike in accidental shootings in the home as people who have absolutely no idea how to use a gun or keep one well or safely come into frequent contact with them (Which, incidentally, I am fine with - ignorance of one's limitations is Darwin's favorite trait), and 2) and increase in the deadliness of burglaries and home invasions. If you might get shot, then there's no reason not to kill everyone in the house and then take all their stuff, oh, and the girl's cute, so we might as well have some fun before we shoot her - that sort of thing. That's the kind of unintended consequence that could bite you in the ass. And there is at least one more that I don't feel like putting the brainpower into finding.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all in favor of castle doctrine. I just prefer to look at it from all sides.

If I come across as internet tough guy, by the way, it is in the nature of making sure that I have the right mind set to be a 10 cent Jackie Chan if the occasion arises. If you don't think about what do do ahead of time, then you have to think about it when there is no time.

Point taken about the least common denominator, though. Small women and little old people. And there's unintended consequence #3 - consider the armed with Alzheimers. The folks who make a drive through produce marked with the biggest hand cannon available. You want from amusing? Consider - burglar breaks in. Granny Hudgins with her brand spanking new Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 magnum lifts and fires, killing the burglar, but because of bone loss the kickback takes off both her hands and knocks the gun into her chest cracking her sternum and killing her. Now that's comedy. (I know, she probably wouldn't be able to lift, let alone aim, but I'm shooting for absurd here.)

On the whole, though, you are very much right.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Plan9

TopHat:

No, no, no. I don't think you're a tough-talking internet hot-air ninja. I have the utmost respect for you based on the attitudes you've shown in your posts. Hell, I wouldn't want to fight you and I'd fight just about anybody.

Yeah, I'm definitely try to see all the sides to home defense. What a mess. I think it's a positive move though considering how many guns are out there and the increasing boldness of criminals because they know there are easy pickings and minimal consequences.

Hmm, I don't see the number of firearms increasing all that much. A few maybe. Very few previous non-gun owners would go out and buy a gun based on some piece of legislation. Those of us that already own firearms "got that blue steel fever" and probably have a couple around the house. States that have a castle doctrine already host the gun nuts of the US who are more likely to cap an intruder than residents of other states anyway.

I concur that accidental shootings will increase based on the number of guns in homes, but not necessarily due to this kinda of legislation. Simple math, really. Give a bunch of scared people firearms and no training? Whoops. I wish there was a way to mandate training without it being another gummint restriction to individual ownership. People don't learn about their new stuff before they use it and they get hurt. This goes for vehicles, power tools, appliances, and firearms.

I'm all for Darwin's natural selection... but not to one of my friends. The dilemma.

Your point about the escalation of force used in such crimes is a noteworthy deduction. I don't see this as a particular problem in that the kind of person who already has the deviant mentality to invade a home and kill everybody in cold blood would end up committing such a crime anyway. Men and their balls, again. I'd rather have more guns in civvie hands... it increases the threat threshold necessary for the criminal to consider that type of crime an option.

Great points, man.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

With violence, there is no happiness in victory; though there would be fewer victims.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

I disagree. I have seen the morbid happiness in violent victory, Baraka.

Part "OH SNAP, I PWNED YOUR ASS WITH A MACHINE GUN," part the joy of still being alive.

Conflict is in our nature. We love it. The tools change, the rush doesn't.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Be careful of the words we choose.

We love our mothers; we don't love conflict. Euphoric excitability might be an outcome of conflict, maybe. It can be a sweet poison. Mowing people down with a machine gun and hugging one's mother are two completely different things, and should trigger completely different emotions.

Don't misread what I mean by "happiness." Happiness is not a warm gun.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Willrevil, Willravel's evil twin, has an answer for "You know what sucks about killing in self defense?"

Plan9

You mean the words I choose? Hell, I meant it.

Love is a chemical reaction reward furnished by our ape brains when we do something good or when something fucks up inside and we think its good.

The chemical doesn't care if it is our mother or if we're butchering hookers.

What is human history without conflict? A lot of getting ready for conflict.

This doesn't apply to every individual in the human race, of course... and we've made a lot of progress with our world civilization network in the last few hundred years, but take away civilization and we go back to the law of the jungle, brother.

And you know what the law of the jungle is, right?

When you're in the trees, you gotta swing.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Don't make me unearth that god-awful term noble savage.

Our brains aren't dependant on iPods et al. Shakespeare didn't have a Blackberry, and he'd be considered a smelly street urchin by our standards.

What?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

By world civilization I meant that women can read and people of different skin colors can interact without it involving racial slurs and Batman-like combat noises.

Wait... how did iPods and Blackberries enter into the human condition? I've never even used either, let alone owned either.

I argue the nobility, I recognize the savage.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Slims

Edited, sorry.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Baraka_Guru

Not so much. I did not deny that there is pleasure in killing. But pleasure does not equal happiness. Pleasure is fleeting, happiness is lasting. Pleasure leads to delusion, happiness is eye-opening. One could find pleasure in anything. What does that say about pleasure?

I should probably clarify: By happiness, I refer to the condition as described by the Buddhist tradition, not the kind prescribed by a psychiatrist. Happiness isn't just the chemical reactions Crompsin mentions; it is a workable path based on understanding oneself and others, and seeing through delusion. It is a difficult thing to achieve. You can't get it by pulling a trigger. It takes hours, if not years.

This is why I warned Crompsin about the words we use. There can be no happiness in killing, though there might be relief, pride, or exhilaration (some feelings of which are harmful, ultimately). We are seldom unaffected by violence; it usually leaves lasting, damaging effects. Happiness can only arise out of violence with great work and understanding, part of which includes forgiving and understanding (and having compassion toward) those who sought to hurt us. The "stigma" you mention, Greg700, isn't artificial, it's as innate as the savage "natures" we enjoy referencing with so much confidence. We are not unintelligent animals. We are programmed with as much sociability (if not far more) as our capacity for great violence.

And, Crompsin, it would take far more than gender-based literacy and a silenced public for a society to be what I would call civilized. What I have written here should demonstrate that.

What sucks about killing in self-defense is that one has been drawn into a painful situation that will prove a challenge to recover from. And for those who do not see this probably have deep-seated issues that would make their path even more challenging, if they choose to walk it at all.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

Does this mean that you think Payton Manning needs to be shot?

__________________
"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."

Fire

For the record, to tophat- if you were worried about the castle doctrine increasing the fuck it attitude of criminals- ie we might get shot so lets do horrible things- be aware that before it was enacted, a family here in town got invaded, and they cooperated- the mom of the house was raped, dad was pistol whipped to death- so the criminal element is already up on the whole murder and rape thing- violent crime has gone down here btw, since the first castle incident.......

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Tophat665

Fire: Worried? No. I am in favor of castle doctrine. I am not in favor of killing, but recognize that it may be necessary in certain circumstances. I also believe that one 1) should learn the capability to kill bare handed if at all possible, 2) do one's killing thus if possible, 3) take responsibility for killing, and 4) be prepared for serious psychological issues afterwards. I train in the hopes that having training will make me less likely to have to use it. (Which is wishful thinking of the superstitious variety. I know.)

Your argument, however was (and I mean this in the nicest way possible), spurious and weak. You're saying that an increase in a negative result is acceptable because that negative result has already come about. That is symptomatic of a misunderstanding of statistics and probability that leads to people mistaking anecdotes for broadly significant events. Makes for great political rhetoric, but is a null signal on any sort of policy level.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Plan9

Personal responsibility is scary.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Michael Vick raped pitbulls?!

Baraka_Guru

Too soon to tell if the castle doctrine is the direct indicator, isn't it? It will only affect those who do the home invasion thing, anyway. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. The castle doctrine won't likely do anything for these people. Maybe we should just lock our daughters up in our towers.

Even with regicide, it often wasn't a foreign enemy; it was usually local adversaries, many of them family. So much for protective castles, even metaphoric ones.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Fire

lets put our daughters in defensive handgun and ccw classes, and let them learn kali instead- that is our plan anyway.....- and tophat, I would like to see the figures in a few years, as I really doubt that the CD is going to increase the violence level when its already through the roof.......

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Baraka_Guru

Not many women are ready to kill their boyfriends in any given situation. Many of them aren't even ready to report their crimes. And ccw and kali might prove next to useless when caught completely off guard by someone you trust.

I wouldn't say violent crime is through the roof, especially when you do a comparative study. ("Through the roof," at least, is a bit of an exaggeration.) I'm sure the CD will help with some crime, but only a small proportion of it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

I had an ex try to run me over with a Saturn (ew!) once. She was latina.

Plan9

BAAM! Time will tell what kinds of home defense legislation are useful.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Atreides88

I may be a bit late in posting, but I think that you are forgetting the crackhead factor in this scenario. If the assailant was high on crack/PCP/meth/etc. you might find him a bit harder to subdue. You might even find that you can't without breaking his limbs to the point that he can't physically use them.

Personally, I would feel much safer using the Glock, hopefully it's chambered in something beginning in .4- and hopefully he doesn't get back up to attack my family. Again, the Taser is an option, but getting your hands on a Taser as a civilian might be difficult, and hopefully it acts as advertised.

__________________
"There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

Plan9

Uh, hello? Will's a superhero.

...

Hmmm...

How many people in this thread have been in a situation where deadly force was necessary?

I smell a big fat goose egg.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Necessary for what?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Oh, I don't know... to keep you alive?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Probably no one. Necessary is an absolute word, and the universe is a big and sublime place.

I'm sure for those who have killed, violence was an efficient answer. But necessary?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

I feel that necessity (in this case) is dictated by previous experience, current ability, and a realistic expectation of various options.

Least common denominator?

Necessary? No. Effective? Yes. In most situations, a firearm is simply risk mitigation in action. Least amount of me, most amount of target.

Ooo, QUICK! HORRIBLE COMPARISON:

We didn't need the A-bomb to end WW2 but I'm glad we used it.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

I cannot disagree with reason. It's like hedging your bets.

It saddens me deeply that you think this about America's greatest wartime atrocity. This is a horrible comparison.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

snowy

Crompsin and Baraka_Guru, I have to say I think the both of you have attained the goal of TFP in this thread. You two have so respectfully disagreed with one another--it's a beautiful thing.

I appreciate both of your posts in this thread immensely, and I've loved reading them too. Keep up the good work.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Plan9

The irony is that I feel I completely agree with Baraka_Guru in my ideology. I didn't, don't, and will never want violence in my life. It is in practice that I have seen and done otherwise. It was necessary to keep others or myself alive. It was always so damned easy to figure out when it was made into "us versus them."

I do not like that part of the world, that part of humanity... that I have witnessed.

The kinda stuff that hurts my soul.

...

What the fuck do I know, anyway? I'm not a genius.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Even soldiers are philosophers--if they will let themselves be.

Violence is sometimes the easiest way for one to do what one thinks is right. It's when it gets out of hand, or when it is used as the first and only "choice," that we should be worried.

Violence should never be desirable.


Crompsie, you know more than what you give yourself credit for.

If this is the case, then I hope this is an inspiration to all who read it. Thanks for the feedback, snowy.

....yowl!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

HAHAH, Yowl.

Damn, I miss the 'box.

How did I miss this little gem?

It has nothing to do with the thread and yet makes perfect sense at the same time!

Was it one of those older Saturn's with the headlights like 8 inches apart in the front?

Why does she have to be Latina, huh?! Why can't she just be a female human!?

Were you going to kill her in self-defense with your martial arts skills?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Don't Saturn owners belong to a cult?

That might make more sense of this.

Can you fight cars with martial arts? I bet Jet Li could (or has).

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Yes, yes... I've been taught the flying radiator sidekick by my master instructor.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Tophat665

Saturn owners do have a cult. The one close personal friend I have who owned a Saturn also was a Mac evangelist and a betamax owner. It's a character flaw.

Absolutely you can fight cars with martial arts. Martial arts will teach you to not be where the car is going.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Willravel

Yep. One of those things that's only a few years old, but you can still get one for $15 and some beads on craigslist.
I've never met a white girl that acted like her before. Or a black girl. Or asian. Or Indian. Or Persian.
Nope. She thought I was shagging her sister. I wasn't.

Suave

The legal system considers the use of a firearm akin to chopping off someone's head with a sword. You're not going to get a more lenient view on things because you just stab some dude in the gut instead of slicing his jugular open. In either case you will, in all likelihood, be considered to be using "lethal force" to defend yourself, as you used a lethal tool to do so. So long as the object is sharp, fires a high-velocity projectile, or really fucking big and heavy (e.g. a sledgehammer) I think it's safe to say that even one shot/jab/slice will be legally considered lethal force.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato