BF2S Forums Another poll brought to you

Spearhead wrote:

Of course its valid.  The problem tho is trying to figure whether it really was self defense or it was some paranoid nutcase who flinched at the sight of a fly

I agree Spear, that is usually not the case however, it does happen, but come the fuck on, they straight up said that it is just an excuse and not valid at all.  It says that people who claim self defense don't respect the lives of others.  Come on.....(not to you, the U.N.)

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 23:29:57)

i dont know much about us laws, but on a moral basis imo yes self defense is valid

But this report focuses on small and light arms use by individuals, and the state's responsibilities in creating and upholding laws.
As an Englishman, who lives in Inner city London, small arms (ab)use is rare. I've never even heard a gun fired! This subject is therefore very hard for me to understand. When I watched Michale Moore's Bowling for Columbine everyone I know thought it was obvious - guns are bad and should much more tightly controlled by the state - and yet even from this forum many (Americans) thought he was just nuts.
For me, the strange thing is that the UN needs to produce a report on self defense with guns for private individuals! Surely you can see that your society would be better off with less guns?

trevoraj wrote:

But this report focuses on small and light arms use by individuals, and the state's responsibilities in creating and upholding laws.
As an Englishman, who lives in Inner city London, small arms (ab)use is rare. I've never even heard a gun fired! This subject is therefore very hard for me to understand. When I watched Michale Moore's Bowling for Columbine everyone I know thought it was obvious - guns are bad and should much more tightly controlled by the state - and yet even from this forum many (Americans) thought he was just nuts.
For me, the strange thing is that the UN needs to produce a report on self defense with guns for private individuals! Surely you can see that your society would be better off with less guns?

Getting your "facts" from Michael Moore is a poor choice.  The report still denies people the right to self defense, or at least proclaims that it is null and void.  Your last sentence should have read, Surely you can see that your society would be better off with less criminals.  Guns are not the problem, in my opinion, but I'm trying to keep this thread less about guns and more about the inherent right of self defense, whether it be with firearms, another weapon, or your bare hands.  Self defense IS a right and should be considered a right by all sane and responsible citizens of the WORLD.

lAgBlRhino wrote:

If someone is coming at you to cause you physical harm...damn stright it's a valid defence.


I'm not one of these people who goes around beating the snot out of people then claiming self defence cause they smelt bad.

But let me make it clear...any a%$hole who tries to cause harm to me and/or my family had better put me down for good cause there will be no stopping me inflicting hurt to said attacker.

damn right theres too many a55holes that will start for the sake of it, and you need to protect you and yours

But this report isn't about self-defense per se, it's about self-defense with guns. It's not just criminals who use guns - average people in the US (it would seem) have them for 'self-defense'. This is surely what the report is trying to address?

Deriving your opinions from a man who alters the speed of footage to establish a more dramatic effect for a "documentary" is not what a reasonable individual would call wise.

As for self-defense, it is both a valid and reasonable human right. Who could possibly feel good about telling somebody that they have to stand by idly and allow themselves and/or their relations to be killed without intervention? Not everyone can afford a panic room, or be within reach of it 24/7.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-09 02:37:05)

trevoraj wrote:

But this report isn't about self-defense per se, it's about self-defense with guns. It's not just criminals who use guns - average people in the US (it would seem) have them for 'self-defense'. This is surely what the report is trying to address?

Even so, people still use firearms as a means of self defense (Sure there are exceptions) but they are not the majority.  Anyways than this person needs to learn how to write:
Let's take a look at the actual text: The word firearm is not used, not even once, on page 9, which is ENTIRELY about Self Defense.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Of course its valid.  The problem tho is trying to figure whether it really was self defense or it was some paranoid nutcase who flinched at the sight of a fly

It can be easy enough. If a redneck blasts some teenagers away just because they were smoking pot out in his woods, I don't think I could reasonably call that a case of self-defense. If someone has a gun levelled at you and you put some holes in him with a small .38 through your coat pocket, then it's probably an acceptable case of self-defense. An old man shooting someone in the back as they flee their property because they were yelling threats about returning to finish the job is a bit more open to interpretation by the court, which is one of the reasons we have them.

Good comment, however I'm trying not to talk that much about guns because some ppl can't handle that subject....Self defense is justified when someone is in a situation where they feel a sense of immediate danger or bodily harm (legal term) or to a third party (pretty much the same for most states).  But like I said before the above screenshot shows clearly a whole page about self defense without the use of the word firearm at all and that self defense is not a right, what a croc.

This recently happened about 15 minutes from where I live.  Excessive force, or self-defense?

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne … 269369.php

How is it within the guidelines of self protection when a 18 year-old girl is wielding a pocket knife and two officers shoot her, citing their own defense as a reason?  To me, that is excessive force, and the two policemen should go to jail for manslaughter at least.  Anyone disagree?  If you do, please tell me how you rationalize this violent act.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-09-09 13:58:38)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

This recently happened about 15 minutes from where I live.  Excessive force, or self-defense?

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne … 269369.php

How is it within the guidelines of self protection when a 18 year-old girl is wielding a pocket knife and two officers shoot her, citing their own defense as a reason?  To me, that is excessive force, and the two policemen should go to jail for manslaughter at least.  Anyone disagree?  If you do, please tell me how you rationalize this violent act.

"Bullets pierced the teenager's shoulders, chest, stomach, arms, hand and thigh, 15 wounds in all, including five in the back"

Damn, 15 shots to take down an 18 year-old girl with a pocket knife? Sad shit. If what happened in that article is true, they should definetly get manslaughter.

trevoraj wrote:

But this report focuses on small and light arms use by individuals, and the state's responsibilities in creating and upholding laws.
As an Englishman, who lives in Inner city London, small arms (ab)use is rare. I've never even heard a gun fired! This subject is therefore very hard for me to understand. When I watched Michale Moore's Bowling for Columbine everyone I know thought it was obvious - guns are bad and should much more tightly controlled by the state - and yet even from this forum many (Americans) thought he was just nuts.
For me, the strange thing is that the UN needs to produce a report on self defense with guns for private individuals! Surely you can see that your society would be better off with less guns?

michael moore has a habit of only presenting half truths and exaggerating statistics while ignoring others altogether, I don't suppose you noticed the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during the Charleton Heston interview stating that they edited his answers as well as spliced in completely different questions thatn the ones that moore actually asked in the interview, oh, that's right, there wasn't a disclaimer. That's why he gets sued over shit like fahrenheit 9-11, in fact, trey parker and matt stone gave him a rather unfavorable portrayal in their own movie, even after being interviewed and represented in a manner that suggests they agree with moore in bowling for columbine


the whole "less guns" argument will only work if you steal harry potter's magic wand and manage to get all the "bad guys" to get rid of their guns, which will never happen, until then, you leave my guns the fuck alone cuz I'm sure as hell not going to sit around and wait for the 15/20 minutes it takes for a cop to get there and hope I still have some blood left when they arrive