RE: What are the limits to self defense.

RE: What are the limits to self defense. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:55:04 AM)
Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are.

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 12:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in. Please say you aren't trying to tell me that crime stopped by the lack of resistance. Please show me where I said I don't want to live in a better environment. Means you don't understand my situation. I'm not saying that, what I meant is you (american people) can't avoid ask yourself "what are we doing wrong?", if the answer is "nothing... it's just that criminal are crazy" than go on watching your back. I'm not so arrogant to think I have solutions but for what I can see from the outside living there is kind of a gamble, you can make lot of money quicker but it's true only untill you won't have any problem otherwise the costs to benefit many basic service are much higher for the indiviaduals, among with other fields where you are much more rigid, and some will loose big time at this gamble, probably many of them will still be law abiding and fight their way back some other will just decide to fuck up other people lives.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/2/2013 5:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in. Please say you aren't trying to tell me that crime stopped by the lack of resistance. Please show me where I said I don't want to live in a better environment. Means you don't understand my situation. I'm not saying that, what I meant is you (american people) can't avoid ask yourself "what are we doing wrong?", if the answer is "nothing... it's just that criminal are crazy" than go on watching your back. I'm not so arrogant to think I have solutions but for what I can see from the outside living there is kind of a gamble, you can make lot of money quicker but it's true only untill you won't have any problem otherwise the costs to benefit many basic service are much higher for the indiviaduals, among with other fields where you are much more rigid, and some will loose big time at this gamble, probably many of them will still be law abiding and fight their way back some other will just decide to fuck up other people lives. You clearly misunderstand the point of this thread. Of course the best thing is not to get into a confrontational situation with a mugger or burglar. The point of this thread is what can and what should a person do if that situation occurs. How to shape society so these things never happen is the subject of another conversation. We have seen views ranging from there is no right of self defense and if you fight back you are as bad as the criminal to the feeling that, if you have the means, it is your responsibility to fight back. They range from unless they actually shoot at you or slash you are at fault for any violence to when they show a weapon they have initiated the violence at that moment. Your views on crime prevention are outside the venue of this discussion and your believe that we like gunfights in the streets is both misinformed and elitist.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/2/2013 7:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are. Rome called them citizens, they were still subjects.

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 1:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in. Please say you aren't trying to tell me that crime stopped by the lack of resistance. Please show me where I said I don't want to live in a better environment. Means you don't understand my situation. I'm not saying that, what I meant is you (american people) can't avoid ask yourself "what are we doing wrong?", if the answer is "nothing... it's just that criminal are crazy" than go on watching your back. I'm not so arrogant to think I have solutions but for what I can see from the outside living there is kind of a gamble, you can make lot of money quicker but it's true only untill you won't have any problem otherwise the costs to benefit many basic service are much higher for the indiviaduals, among with other fields where you are much more rigid, and some will loose big time at this gamble, probably many of them will still be law abiding and fight their way back some other will just decide to fuck up other people lives. You clearly misunderstand the point of this thread. Of course the best thing is not to get into a confrontational situation with a mugger or burglar. The point of this thread is what can and what should a person do if that situation occurs. How to shape society so these things never happen is the subject of another conversation. We have seen views ranging from there is no right of self defense and if you fight back you are as bad as the criminal to the feeling that, if you have the means, it is your responsibility to fight back. They range from unless they actually shoot at you or slash you are at fault for any violence to when they show a weapon they have initiated the violence at that moment. Your views on crime prevention are outside the venue of this discussion and your believe that we like gunfights in the streets is both misinformed and elitist. It's not that I didn't understood the topic but you asked me and I answered, in which terms this connects with self defence is some post ago and I don't want to repeat myself. [8\|]

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 1:27:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are. Rome called them citizens, they were still subjects. For more than half of it's life rome was a repubblic with a senate, two prime minister elected every year, separation of state's powers, an army based on coscrption, a law statute that's still the base of most western law systems, and local administrations on the territory. Than after two civil wars thing changed but the concept of citizenship among rome's territory is exactly the one we have. And by the way your post has nothing to do with self defence.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 2:44:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are. Rome called them citizens, they were still subjects. Now you are reverting to childish nonsense.........If Rome called people citizens and they were still subjects what the fuck was your original point. I am sorry to keep pointing out the errors of your posts, I am just a tad pernickety regards getting the facts straight. ~~ Citizen Smith.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 9:27:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are. Rome called them citizens, they were still subjects. For more than half of it's life rome was a repubblic with a senate, two prime minister elected every year, separation of state's powers, an army based on coscrption, a law statute that's still the base of most western law systems, and local administrations on the territory. Than after two civil wars thing changed but the concept of citizenship among rome's territory is exactly the one we have. And by the way your post has nothing to do with self defence. And under the Empire they were still called citizens but were actually subjects. In every thread Polite picks a sidebar to attempt to derail the thread and to prove his self proclaimed superiority. I attempt to humor him as it seems to be needed for his self perception.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 9:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Yet your claim is still wrong, no matter how amused you are. Rome called them citizens, they were still subjects. Now you are reverting to childish nonsense.........If Rome called people citizens and they were still subjects what the fuck was your original point. I am sorry to keep pointing out the errors of your posts, I am just a tad pernickety regards getting the facts straight. ~~ Citizen Smith. Citizenship is not a title it is a state of mind and a relationship with the state.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 9:45:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in. Please say you aren't trying to tell me that crime stopped by the lack of resistance. Please show me where I said I don't want to live in a better environment. Means you don't understand my situation. I'm not saying that, what I meant is you (american people) can't avoid ask yourself "what are we doing wrong?", if the answer is "nothing... it's just that criminal are crazy" than go on watching your back. I'm not so arrogant to think I have solutions but for what I can see from the outside living there is kind of a gamble, you can make lot of money quicker but it's true only untill you won't have any problem otherwise the costs to benefit many basic service are much higher for the indiviaduals, among with other fields where you are much more rigid, and some will loose big time at this gamble, probably many of them will still be law abiding and fight their way back some other will just decide to fuck up other people lives. You clearly misunderstand the point of this thread. Of course the best thing is not to get into a confrontational situation with a mugger or burglar. The point of this thread is what can and what should a person do if that situation occurs. How to shape society so these things never happen is the subject of another conversation. We have seen views ranging from there is no right of self defense and if you fight back you are as bad as the criminal to the feeling that, if you have the means, it is your responsibility to fight back. They range from unless they actually shoot at you or slash you are at fault for any violence to when they show a weapon they have initiated the violence at that moment. Your views on crime prevention are outside the venue of this discussion and your believe that we like gunfights in the streets is both misinformed and elitist. It's not that I didn't understood the topic but you asked me and I answered, in which terms this connects with self defence is some post ago and I don't want to repeat myself. [8\|] Don't be in that situation is great in theory.

hlen5 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 10:37:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Question should the use of deadly force by a civilian be equal that of a member of law enforcement? I consider my life equally important, so yes.

hlen5 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 10:44:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ............You do not have to kill someone to stop them. If you cannot hit what you aim at you should not have a firearm. No you don't, but once someone looks at the bore of a gun, the gun-holder has said s/he is willing to kill you. Do you think a burglar won't fight for their life? That's why if you aim, you have to be prepared to kill.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 11:05:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And under the Empire they were still called citizens but were actually subjects. In every thread Polite picks a sidebar to attempt to derail the thread and to prove his self proclaimed superiority. I attempt to humor him as it seems to be needed for his self perception. Bullshit, you introduced the term citizens to try and prove some convoluted point, without having any inkling of eithern fact or history. You started the sidebar about subjects vs citizens and now try and blame me. If you wish to report my sidetracking doing so in this thread feel free. All I am doing is correcting your errors (again)

kdsub -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 11:07:36 AM)
quote: No you don't, but once someone looks at the bore of a gun, the gun-holder has said s/he is willing to kill you. Do you think a burglar won't fight for their life? That's why if you aim, you have to be prepared to kill. Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit. It is far different shooting at a target on the range and someone bent on injuring you in real life. As often as not bystanders are hit instead. Even with training the average, and even above average, shooter will have a hard time hitting what they are aiming at when in a stress situation. This has been shown over and over again...What chance do you or the average gun toting amateur have? Now I'll set back and read all the bullshit posters tell me how they would never miss the kid with a knife or 6 shooter...between the eyes every time I'm sure... oh and of course they are making sure their field of fire is clear so they don't hit someone else on a pass through... yea. Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 11:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Citizenship is not a title it is a state of mind and a relationship with the state. Yes exactly. It is what British people have with our government. If you feel you are not subject to American laws, feel free to show some evidence.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 11:09:22 AM)
ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Deleted double post.

lovmuffin -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 12:05:51 PM)
U quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: No you don't, but once someone looks at the bore of a gun, the gun-holder has said s/he is willing to kill you. Do you think a burglar won't fight for their life? That's why if you aim, you have to be prepared to kill. Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit. It is far different shooting at a target on the range and someone bent on injuring you in real life. As often as not bystanders are hit instead. Even with training the average, and even above average, shooter will have a hard time hitting what they are aiming at when in a stress situation. This has been shown over and over again...What chance do you or the average gun toting amateur have? Now I'll set back and read all the bullshit posters tell me how they would never miss the kid with a knife or 6 shooter...between the eyes every time I'm sure... oh and of course they are making sure their field of fire is clear so they don't hit someone else on a pass through... yea. Butch "Guns as self-defense are so unreliable" ? That's a total load of crap. In fact its quite the opposite but if you know of something better I sure would like to know what it is. "As often as not bystanders are hit" ? Cops missing their target at close range in a gun fight happens but certainly not to the degree at which you exaggerate like most of the rest of your post.

graceadieu -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 12:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution. Yep we all know he is a well meaning kind hearted person who is just down on his luck and would never resort to violence against the gunslinging victim although you obviously consider the victim the greater criminal, after all how dare he try to keep that poor innocent mugger from making an honest living. Where on Earth did you get that from what I said? Somebody that's pulled a knife on you (who may or may not be down on his luck etc, though I said nothing of the sort) is dangerous. But he probably would rather go to jail for a few years for robbing you than for life for murdering you, and he'll probably take your wallet and walk away. It's better for you to give him your wallet and nobody gets hurt, than for you to go for your gun and you both end up hurt or dead.

graceadieu -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 12:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman Okay, let's break this down. Someone accosts me with a knife, and when I go for my weapon, he stabs me, therefore its my fault I got stabbed. It's not "your fault". Obviously, it's his fault. But you're also not obligated to escalate the situation. quote: Or, I could wuss out and let him take MY wallet. Ah, I see. You think letting someone steal your credit cards (which you will immediately cancel) makes you less of a man. quote: I can tell you haven't been in a fight against an armed man. I have. I used to be a bouncer and it's not as easy as it looks to stab someone facing you. In doing so, you expose yourself at least two times, the overhand drawback or if you do the hip-low brandish. When I was younger, I practiced to make my move during those two times. Now, not so much (mainly because I've broken my body being a bouncer, among other things). Fortunately, I haven't, though as a martial artist I've trained quite a bit with an opponent with a fake knife, so I'm familiar with what you're talking about. But I don't think most people have done that. I think a lot of people think they're real tough and get a false sense of confidence because they've got a gun. Every time there's a school shooting, for example, we see people say "oh, if only every teacher carried a gun, they could've just shot that guy while he was running down the hall" as if holding a gun automatically makes you some kind of expert marksman.

Nosathro -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/3/2013 1:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: No you don't, but once someone looks at the bore of a gun, the gun-holder has said s/he is willing to kill you. Do you think a burglar won't fight for their life? That's why if you aim, you have to be prepared to kill. Guns as self-defense are so unreliable. I have seen video of trained law enforcement in gun battles with less than 10 feet separating cop from attacker and 10 or more shots fired and no one hit. It is far different shooting at a target on the range and someone bent on injuring you in real life. As often as not bystanders are hit instead. Even with training the average, and even above average, shooter will have a hard time hitting what they are aiming at when in a stress situation. This has been shown over and over again...What chance do you or the average gun toting amateur have? Now I'll set back and read all the bullshit posters tell me how they would never miss the kid with a knife or 6 shooter...between the eyes every time I'm sure... oh and of course they are making sure their field of fire is clear so they don't hit someone else on a pass through... yea. Butch You are correct, guns do not guarantee anything. Study indicate at home you are more likely to shoot a family member. What you described is the "Fight or Flight" response in humans. The body goes through physical/biological changes, blood goes to vital organs, tunnel vision, rapid heat beating, short breathing, hands shake, not a very good if you trying to shoot a gun. There is nothing that can be done to change it. There are so many studies showing its' effect in shooting, in most cases the person could not even get the gun out of the holster.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625