Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

 

Poll

Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?

Yes95%95% - 246
No4%4% - 11
Total: 257
2006-09-10 16:38:36
jonsimon
Member
+224|6922

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Honestly, the UN is right. Killing in self-defense is not justifiable. However, non-lethal self-defense is often justifiable.
You've got to be kidding me man, what!?!?!? This doesn't have to relate with guns, otherwise I would understand your obtuse conclusion, but your telling me, I don't have the right to try and fight someone for my life if they are trying to KILL ME.  Why?
But how often do people honestly try to kill you? It's not really justifiable to kill a guy in a barfight, but it's certainly justifiable to return punches. Keep in mind, it's fairly difficult to accidentally kill someone. I mean, if you beat someone to death, it's gross neglegance you could have stopped when he was no longer a threat. And even if you stab someone, they'll easily live if you call an ambulance. Even with gunshot wounds it's difficult to kill a man if an ambulance is called.

Honestly, if someone threatens you and you harm them enough to kill them, you should be obligated to call an ambulance. It's the only right thing to do.
2006-09-10 18:00:11
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7163|Salt Lake City

jonsimon wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Honestly, the UN is right. Killing in self-defense is not justifiable. However, non-lethal self-defense is often justifiable.
You've got to be kidding me man, what!?!?!? This doesn't have to relate with guns, otherwise I would understand your obtuse conclusion, but your telling me, I don't have the right to try and fight someone for my life if they are trying to KILL ME.  Why?
But how often do people honestly try to kill you? It's not really justifiable to kill a guy in a barfight, but it's certainly justifiable to return punches. Keep in mind, it's fairly difficult to accidentally kill someone. I mean, if you beat someone to death, it's gross neglegance you could have stopped when he was no longer a threat. And even if you stab someone, they'll easily live if you call an ambulance. Even with gunshot wounds it's difficult to kill a man if an ambulance is called.

Honestly, if someone threatens you and you harm them enough to kill them, you should be obligated to call an ambulance. It's the only right thing to do.
Sorry dude, as much as I'm a fighter for the more liberal side of things, if some one breaks into my home, the coroner is taking them away.

END OF STORY
2006-09-10 18:09:04
jonsimon
Member
+224|6922

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


You've got to be kidding me man, what!?!?!? This doesn't have to relate with guns, otherwise I would understand your obtuse conclusion, but your telling me, I don't have the right to try and fight someone for my life if they are trying to KILL ME.  Why?
But how often do people honestly try to kill you? It's not really justifiable to kill a guy in a barfight, but it's certainly justifiable to return punches. Keep in mind, it's fairly difficult to accidentally kill someone. I mean, if you beat someone to death, it's gross neglegance you could have stopped when he was no longer a threat. And even if you stab someone, they'll easily live if you call an ambulance. Even with gunshot wounds it's difficult to kill a man if an ambulance is called.

Honestly, if someone threatens you and you harm them enough to kill them, you should be obligated to call an ambulance. It's the only right thing to do.
Sorry dude, as much as I'm a fighter for the more liberal side of things, if some one breaks into my home, the coroner is taking them away.

END OF STORY
But what if you get in a barfight? What I'm saying is killing in self-defense is not justifiable across the board.
2006-09-11 04:45:25
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7256
25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize
self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights
law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme
circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even
so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the
State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.
I think the point was that If you let self defence be a human right then everyone must have the right to have the means to defend themselves. All rapists, murders, nutters and extremists would still have the right to have a gun in order to defend themselves. If some criminals stole a tank then everyone would have the right to buy a tank to defend themselves, If a criminal gets his hands on a helecopter then eveyone would have the right to buy stingers.


The report still legally allows you defend yourself against an attacker and kill him/her if it was judged to be necessary to save yourself/others.
2006-09-11 05:24:51
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7199|PNW

jonsimon wrote:

But what if you get in a barfight? What I'm saying is killing in self-defense is not justifiable across the board.
A barfight? No problem. But dude, some fights just don't occur under controlled conditions. Humans are fragile creatures and accidents do happen. Though if an aggressor has an obvious intent to kill (is armed; good indication), it's your job to prevent him from succeeding. That being said, a gun is a more controlled means against a hostile armed for a melee, as it allows you to strike from range, disable an opponent, get to cover and call for the police (tasers and mace are not guaranteed when dealing with the psychotic and/or drugged). But in hand-to-hand, there is no time for such luxury. Fleeing is not always an option. In the case it isn't, you'll either have allow yourself to lose and have your unconscious or dead body be at the mercy of an unknown entity, or have his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance.

And no, I don't enjoy the prospect of slaughter. I'd be happier if nobody had to defend themselves, but Jiminy Cricket, now, the world is just not the utopian place you think it is.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-11 05:28:47)

2006-09-11 06:01:28
Jainus
Member
+30|7003|Herts, UK

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

But dude, some fights just don't occur under controlled conditions... a gun is a more controlled means against a hostile armed for a melee, as it allows you to strike from range, disable an opponent, get to cover and call for the police (tasers and mace are not guaranteed when dealing with the psychotic and/or drugged). But in hand-to-hand, there is no time for such luxury. Fleeing is not always an option. In the case it isn't, you'll either have allow yourself to lose and have your unconscious or dead body be at the mercy of an unknown entity, or have his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance.
In most out of control situations, you don't have the distance to play with. Either your in the crap or your not. If you've got distance to get your gun out, aim and shoot all the while maintaining a comfortable distance to your attacker, you have the distance to escape. The only time that would not be valid is if their blocking the door/way. In this instance you should at least be able to argue your case in court rather than have the UN tell you that your a criminal.

I would say that self defense is a right and the UN has once again (surprise, surprise) got its head up its ass. Where i would draw the line is killing your attacker. If you defend yourself and the guy ends up dead you should be done for manslaughter. Self-defense for me stops the moment you pull a weapon out to attack your assailant.

And for the people who would ask if I'd ever faced an armed attacker, I'd say yes though only a knife not a gun. The guy with the knife ended up stabbing himself with a little assistance and lived. I never touched the knife or used a weapon myself except for hands and feet. In the UK we don't have the same number of guns because they are not readily available for everyone to buy. As a result, fewer guns and fewer gun related crimes/self-defense cases.
2006-09-11 06:22:39
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7199|PNW

Exactly. In close quarters, you're not going to be able to be very picky, and you'll have to take the shot or strike you can in the shortest amount of possible time. But even at range, escape is not always an option (as you say, with the exit blocked). It is in these cases where someone may be neutralized in a less lethal fashion. But there are other circumstances besides blocked exit that denies retreat. If you're crippled in such a way that you can't move fast, it's not going to get you very far. And if you retreat, and one or more of your friends, family members, fellow church goers (no, I'm inactive at my church) or even grocery shoppers get killed in your place, it's not going to help in the way of improving society much.

I view killing as an abominable, but sometimes necessary evil. Given the choice, I would back down from a fight rather than enter one, both due to my principles as a Christian and the hassle involved in proving such a case to the courts. And personally, I don't care what tool someone uses to commit a violent crime, from fists to bombs. If their victims are injured or dead, the end result is the same.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-11 06:23:12)

2006-09-11 09:57:06
Reaper2325
Member
+2|7150|New Hartford, New York
Killing in Self-Defense is a last resort, as taught in my Pistol saftey course. They try to teach you to learn your weapon, and pratice  with it so in the future, if you ever have to, shoot to disable. Take a kneecap, a shoulder, or a thigh to disable. If you miss, that's why most modern guns are double-action and hold 6-10 rounds.

Myself, I will practice self-defense depending on the situation, location, and what's available to me. In my home, don't even try it, between my pistols and shotgun, my wife's pistols and shotgun, various swords, knives, throwing knives, Pellet Pistol, and various paintball markers with adjustable regs and velocity, we have a weapon pretty much available to us to use no matter where we are in the house for self-defense and different degrees of damage infliction. When in NYC, we may carry small hidden knives on us for protection since are pistol permits aren't valid downstate and requires a seperate permit.

I guess when your raise in an area like my wife and I were are, it's ingrained into us to use firearms for self-defense, and to pratice safe gun handling. Hell, we've both been shooting and handling guns since we were 6.

Also remember, that depending what happens during the self-defending, there can / or will be reprocusions. The attacker or their family could turn around an sue you for killing/injuring the attacker. A stray shot that passed through or missed the attacker could kill someone down the street depending on the calibur used.

Myself, I would prefer to defend myself with a Paintball/Airsoft gun. It's not lethal (well, most of the time) and hurt the attacker pretty good when your marker can do 15-30 rds/per second and you have 200 rds to play with @ 300+fps. I bet when the the attacker gets hit with the first 20 rounds, not only will they be in pain, but most likely dropped what ever they were going to attack you with. Play paintball sometime and try taking a couple hits to the bare arm or throat without protection and tell me it didn't hurt and I'll call you a liar.

I guess it's best said, "For Every Action, There Is An Oposite and Equal Reaction".
2006-09-11 12:04:55
jonsimon
Member
+224|6922

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

But what if you get in a barfight? What I'm saying is killing in self-defense is not justifiable across the board.
A barfight? No problem. But dude, some fights just don't occur under controlled conditions. Humans are fragile creatures and accidents do happen. Though if an aggressor has an obvious intent to kill (is armed; good indication), it's your job to prevent him from succeeding. That being said, a gun is a more controlled means against a hostile armed for a melee, as it allows you to strike from range, disable an opponent, get to cover and call for the police (tasers and mace are not guaranteed when dealing with the psychotic and/or drugged). But in hand-to-hand, there is no time for such luxury. Fleeing is not always an option. In the case it isn't, you'll either have allow yourself to lose and have your unconscious or dead body be at the mercy of an unknown entity, or have his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance.

And no, I don't enjoy the prospect of slaughter. I'd be happier if nobody had to defend themselves, but Jiminy Cricket, now, the world is just not the utopian place you think it is.
Just the point I'm making. You said "his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance." People have survived dozens of gunshots wounds because they have recieved medical attention. If you harm another in self defense, you are obligated to call an ambulance, and if you do, they probably won't die unless you used excessive force.
2006-09-11 12:56:30
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

P581 wrote:

It take no courage to cause violence, it takes all the courage you can muster to act like a human being in the most difficult times.
Unfortunately most crimes won't happen like that, and most criminals won't want to stay for dinner, a very nice thought, and it would be wonderful if things like that could happen on a massive scale, but thats a little to lofty and thoughtful for reality. 
2006-09-11 12:58:22
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

But how often do people honestly try to kill you? It's not really justifiable to kill a guy in a barfight, but it's certainly justifiable to return punches. Keep in mind, it's fairly difficult to accidentally kill someone. I mean, if you beat someone to death, it's gross neglegance you could have stopped when he was no longer a threat. And even if you stab someone, they'll easily live if you call an ambulance. Even with gunshot wounds it's difficult to kill a man if an ambulance is called.


Honestly, if someone threatens you and you harm them enough to kill them, you should be obligated to call an ambulance. It's the only right thing to do.
I agree with every word jon, you should call an ambulance, and in a bar fight yeah, thats different (but I wouldn't be carrying a gun if I was at a bar, and wouldn't probably be at a bar in the first place because I don't drink that much).

Your kinda missing what I meant, I didn't mean that you could just SHOOT someone for threatening you, thats stupid, they have to pose an immediate threat, just making sure I clarify there, don't want you lefties to go nutz on me thinking I think its ok to shoot someone for just threatening you. 
2006-09-11 13:00:43
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Sorry dude, as much as I'm a fighter for the more liberal side of things, if some one breaks into my home, the coroner is taking them away.

END OF STORY
OOh, slippery slope, just because they break in, in most states, doesn't warrant deadly force, be careful there, just make sure if that ever happens that you feel that you were afraid for your life and the lives of your family, it is a fine line between burgulary and creating a state of fear to warrant deadly force. 

It certainly is your right to protect yourself and your valuables to an extent, but deadly force is usually only warranted (in most states) when you are directly threatened, some laws like making you RETREAT though are not conducive to people's safety, if you are threatened directly with deadly force you should not be expected to back down, thats just not safe.
2006-09-11 13:01:43
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

But what if you get in a barfight? What I'm saying is killing in self-defense is not justifiable across the board.
Of course not jon, duh, but it is certainly used and applied in MANY MANY cases a year where it is.  Your starting to sound a little more sane and a little less like the U.N. who, at least in the report, stated that self defense isn't applicable anywhere (which is just plain dumb)
2006-09-11 13:04:14
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

1)  All rapists, murders, nutters and extremists would still have the right to have a gun in order to defend themselves.

2) If some criminals stole a tank then everyone would have the right to buy a tank to defend themselves, If a criminal gets his hands on a helecopter then eveyone would have the right to buy stingers.


3) The report still legally allows you defend yourself against an attacker and kill him/her if it was judged to be necessary to save yourself/others.
1) I disagree, they gave up that right when they decide to harm someone else.

2) Not true, thats ridicolous.  The only tank theft that I know of was in CA in the mid 90's where some guy stole a tank out of a National Guard base, he ran over lots of cars and property but was certainly not competent or had enough ppl with him (none) to fire any of the guns, not to mention it wasn't loaded out.

3) Quote please.    Where does it say that, it is VERY misleading if it does, and someone needs to learn how to competently write a report.
2006-09-11 13:05:31
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

Just the point I'm making. You said "his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance." People have survived dozens of gunshots wounds because they have recieved medical attention. If you harm another in self defense, you are obligated to call an ambulance, and if you do, they probably won't die unless you used excessive force.
Good point jon, in self defense shootings you are REQUIRED to call the police and/or ambulance (depending on state) but across the board you have to notify the police or face charges for not doing so (duh).  Good comment jon.
2006-09-11 13:11:01
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6954|Portland, OR USA
It's a matter of extension.  You have the right to Life, and you have the right to protect your right to Life.  Now, THAT is what is open to interpretation.  The most commonly accepted interpretation of this is right to self defense, but that is but one way to protect your right to life.  So, by leaving it as an implicit implication rather than an explicit statement, it makes it less likely that the self-defense aspect itself will be disected to the same degree as the explicitly stated rights.

EDIT:

To the point of being required to call authorities, this is a prime example of why Depraved Indifference is a punishable offense and why it was developed as legeslation.

Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-09-11 13:12:46)

2006-09-11 13:25:17
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7270|Reykjavík, Iceland.
6 years so far, of martial arts wont fail when it comes to self defence.

If someone would try to attack me, I wouldn't hesitate to knock him down, as long as he was the one who made the first move.
2006-09-11 13:26:23
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7071|Seattle, WA

PBAsydney wrote:

as long as he was the one who made the first move.
Beautiful, good to hear we have common sense citizens overseas.    Stay safe.
2006-09-11 13:27:38
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6976|Southeastern USA
the UN's behavior concerning self defense in general is sadly not surprising, it seems that just about every year they try to bring up a bill to ban private gun sales and ownership worldwide

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/un_guncontrol.pdf


http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=201

perhaps more alarmingly, the UN knows that this would be in direct violation to the constitution of the United States, and is suspected of trying to use this issue as a means to change our constitution, thereby paving the way to start allowing foreign officials to start governing other nations at will

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets … ;issue=015

sorry to bring this back to gun control, but the UN seems to be using every reason imaginable as a way to start imposing it's will on the world and it seems that they need to eliminate self-defense concerns in order to get their hands on the gun ownership issue, so it's nearly impossible to mention one without the other

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-11 13:29:47)

2006-09-11 13:36:29
linster
Member
+2|7040|LEICS UK

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

1)  All rapists, murders, nutters and extremists would still have the right to have a gun in order to defend themselves.

2) If some criminals stole a tank then everyone would have the right to buy a tank to defend themselves, If a criminal gets his hands on a helecopter then eveyone would have the right to buy stingers.


3) The report still legally allows you defend yourself against an attacker and kill him/her if it was judged to be necessary to save yourself/others.
1) I disagree, they gave up that right when they decide to harm someone else.

2) Not true, thats ridicolous.  The only tank theft that I know of was in CA in the mid 90's where some guy stole a tank out of a National Guard base, he ran over lots of cars and property but was certainly not competent or had enough ppl with him (none) to fire any of the guns, not to mention it wasn't loaded out.

3) Quote please.    Where does it say that, it is VERY misleading if it does, and someone needs to learn how to competently write a report.
2006-09-11 13:38:13
linster
Member
+2|7040|LEICS UK
totally agree, how can anyone sit there and say ppl like IAN HUNTLEY eg have rights?
2006-09-11 13:41:17
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6976|Southeastern USA

Spearhead wrote:

kracker is so badass, I wanna be like him when I grow up

/sarcasm

Nothings wrong with being against gun control, but trying to make yourself look macho by defying government control is plain dumb, mkay?
the government has more than enough control over gun ownership, nor do I need to make myself look macho, the only things just plain dumb going on here are

A) trusting your own personal defense and that of your loved ones and property to someone else
B) the use of web cutseyness like "/sarcasm" or the inevitable and more annoying *cough*
C) being so obsessed with a cartoon that you make most of your posts in a manner modeled after a character, one or two references is one thing, but damn, grow up
2006-09-11 13:46:15
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6976|Southeastern USA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

1)  All rapists, murders, nutters and extremists would still have the right to have a gun in order to defend themselves.

2) If some criminals stole a tank then everyone would have the right to buy a tank to defend themselves, If a criminal gets his hands on a helecopter then eveyone would have the right to buy stingers.


3) The report still legally allows you defend yourself against an attacker and kill him/her if it was judged to be necessary to save yourself/others.
1) I disagree, they gave up that right when they decide to harm someone else.

2) Not true, thats ridicolous.  The only tank theft that I know of was in CA in the mid 90's where some guy stole a tank out of a National Guard base, he ran over lots of cars and property but was certainly not competent or had enough ppl with him (none) to fire any of the guns, not to mention it wasn't loaded out.

3) Quote please.    Where does it say that, it is VERY misleading if it does, and someone needs to learn how to competently write a report.
to #1, of course they do, until they commit a rape, murder, or use a firearm in a crime, at which point they become a criminal, and as such lose their right to own/use/possess a firearm in the US
2006-09-11 13:56:48
linster
Member
+2|7040|LEICS UK
whys everyone talking about firearms? i thought this was not gun related, you dont need to shoot anyone to be charged for assault whilst protecting yourself against someone who wants your watch eg
2006-09-11 14:00:41
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6976|Southeastern USA
it seems that the self defense argument is the biggest obstacle to the UN's worldwide gun ban, so by dismissing it as a viable excuse for reciprocal or pre-emptive action they can then then move on to their main objectives.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard