ARGH!!!!!!!!!i!!!! RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reaper239]

Hi there,

@yarri: Well, that is exactly why I ask how things are in the US. And I agree with reaper that "natural law" is a very fundamental and philosophical principle which is the source of many (legal) things. In fact most European legal systems are based or rooted in the principles of "natural law".
Another reason why I emphasize the "European" (or better: German) perspective is to make anyone, who reads my words, understand or at least see that my perspective is or may be different, because I am not from the USA; I just want to prevent misunderstandings of any kind, because someone might assume that I could be on of the few weirdos from the USA.

As for crimes and rapes and stuff ... Well, let me put it this way: The moral and ethical understanding of any criminal act is to no degree different here in Germany or the EU from how things are acknowledged in the USA. Regardless of that I feel inclined to simply neglect the simple logic: "Because there is crime/ rapes, I speak up in favor of more guns for anyone." In my humble understanding both don'T necessarily connect. Just consider all the different kinds of criminal actions which do not involve the harm of individuals - like anything happening in economy (corruption), involving money or valuable stuff (fraud, scams, theft, IT-based crimes).

Too many people are being shot because of a "good cause" in the wake of revenge or self-defense, and in the aftermath his death is too be considered "need- and senseless", because he was assumed to be a certain criminal or rapist, but in fact he was not (reminds me of those death-sentences in which the death-sentenced was not responsible, because the real convict was found later). It is like what Gandalf asks Frodo: To take a life is easy, but could you give it back?
In other cases you shoot your gun in seld-defense - a 100% proper cause, no need to argue about it-, but for whatever reason your aiming is poor and instead of the villain you wound or even kill someone else - a so-called 'aberatio ictus'. And if the one being shot feels threatened by you although you act in self-defense against another one, maybe he starts shooting you because he depicts you as an attacker and thread instead of a defender ... This is spiraling towards epic fail on all sides.
That things like these are not as "paranoid" or "weird" as they may seem at first, is obvious, if you just consider the many, many cases in which police-men (everywhere in the world) misunderstand situations and act - more or less violant - in good faith with all their force available; NYPD is a good (arguable) example. And if trained personell like police-forces is not safe from getting into or performing such crazy situations, then the 'normal guy' around with his gun is just as well in danger of getting things wrong and acting, though accordingly, still failing - maybe even horribly.

But to be frank: I don't want to get lost in details like those (extreme) cases, because they happen in a minority of cases; this is why I don't connect with the different statistics, because statistics either point towards prevention of extremes or over-emphasizing things, which actually are not a real problem at all. I'd rather stick with principles. And here - in all honesty, and although I did not grow up with guns in anyway and thus have no understanding or feeling for it - I actually tend towards supporting private ownership or private property of guns, maybe with some restrictions set up by public authorities (certain age; maybe kind of a test or a licensing system, maybe registration, whatever ...). The reason for this is the - very idealistic - understanding that people living a responsible life won't use guns in order to harm others - like what madmen, criminals, or people with 'self-justic-missions' tend to do ...

All the best!
Liam

so you're saying that people don't have a right to self defense? i'm asking because that is also a principle of natural law. and what about the thousands of defensive gun uses every day that do not involve fireing a shot? low estimates are almost 2,000 a day. the decision to use deadly forces is not a simple one, and should by no means be taken lightly, and you are absolutely responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, but does that mean that we make people defenseless? conneticut made every school in the state a gun free school zone and it worked so well it cost the lives of 20 children, utah, meanwhile, has no restrictions on carry in the classroom, and there have been exactly 0 (zero) school massacres. similarly, israel had a problem with school massacres and decided to issue their teachers galil assault rifles. guess what stopped in israel? it's this whole concept of a gun free zone, that somehow a sign will magically make the bad guys leave their guns at the door. it doesn't work that way, as i've said on numerous occasions, laws only affect the law abiding, not the criminals. do german gun laws disarm german criminals? what about the fact that germany has 2 of the 4 worst school massacres recorded between the US and EU?

[yarri]

You mentioned too many people are being shot in the wake of revenge or self defense. I don't understand this statement. Please clarify? As revenge and self defense are two very unrelated things

[yarri]

Liem, you quoted the hobbit.... Really? ok yes I could easily take a life in defense of my own or of the three lives I "gave" to the world. In a heart beat I would pull the trigger without a second thought and put down a rabid monster threatening my family.

[LiamKerrington]

As I'm stuck on mobile my cut and paste skills are limited so bear with me as I go through you lengthy post
You asked how things were in the states? Dangerous depending on where you live. My father and step mother used to live in a nice neighborhood. Gangs have moved in and now car windows are broken nightly and vandalism has escalated. They've been robbed twice and an elderly couple down the street who as my step mother put it " had nice things" were subject to a home invasion and beaten half to death. My father invested in home security and an AR.... They haven't as of yet been robbed again but I can tell you average police response time is 7 to 15 minutes.

7-15 minutes response-time is bad. Is really, really bad. And in all honesty: the response time in Germany is not really better. In theory most police-stations would be able to deploy police-forces within less then three minutes; but once I called the police because of an alarm going off at a bank-institute; and the police did not show up within 15 minutes, although the police-station was only about half a mile away ... Not kidding here.

Were your parents not attacked because the gangs now know about the AR? Or is it just coincidence?

About safety here in Germany: A main strategy of police-activities in Germany is to kind of 'control' criminal areas by marking areas. In those the rate of criminal actions is much higher then in most (all?) other areas; the police has partially retracted from those areas, doin' some razzias every now and then to let the criminals know they'd still be around; also the police only focuses on the heavy stuff like hard drugs, crime overlords etc. To some degree it is similar to what happens in the third season of "The Wire", but not as extreme. The general advice for normal people is to stay away from those areas; this advice is not spoken out loudly by the police, but it is general consensus in each town with such areas. It is like saying: "You want to go there??? You better think twice about it, it'S the place with all the scum around ...". And actually this kind of strategy works pretty well.

Just for the better understanding: Not one commissioner or politician would openly acknowledge strategies like those; yet it is good (old) practice.

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

so you're saying that people don't have a right to self defense? i'm asking because that is also a principle of natural law.

I wrote this, but I am not saying this. I just say: In a minority of cases even self-defense may go horribly wrong. There is no reason to question self-defense in general, though. That's why I clarified that I don't like sticking with "extreme" examples. They may be able to emphasize certain problems; but they won't help answering fundamental questions of principle.

What I do here is no less then testing the different borders of this topic.

You mentioned too many people are being shot in the wake of revenge or self defense. I don't understand this statement. Please clarify? As revenge and self defense are two very unrelated things

You are right. Self-defense and revenge are two very different things. And I am sorry that I put them both together, although they have nothing to do with each other. And truth is, some people tend to act irrationally out of misunderstandings to avenge their hurt or false pride - maybe even with guns. It is needless to say that this kind of action is shit. Meanwhile other people act in self-defense. And in both situations things may get out of control; this is what I intended to say.

As for quoting The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Yes, it is a fantasy-fiction; it is nothing else but a huge fairy tale. But it is written by a J.R.R. Tolkien, who was more then just a fairy-tale-storyteller and who did more then just write a fantasy-novel. And although Gandalf, who I recited, is as fictitious as the tale, there is much truth in the words Tolkien gave him and I recited.

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

7-15 minutes response-time is bad. Is really, really bad. And in all honesty: the response time in Germany is not really better. In theory most police-stations would be able to deploy police-forces within less then three minutes; but once I called the police because of an alarm going off at a bank-institute; and the police did not show up within 15 minutes, although the police-station was only about half a mile away ... Not kidding here.

Were your parents not attacked because the gangs now know about the AR? Or is it just coincidence?

About safety here in Germany: A main strategy of police-activities in Germany is to kind of 'control' criminal areas by marking areas. In those the rate of criminal actions is much higher then in most (all?) other areas; the police has partially retracted from those areas, doin' some razzias every now and then to let the criminals know they'd still be around; also the police only focuses on the heavy stuff like hard drugs, crime overlords etc. To some degree it is similar to what happens in the third season of "The Wire", but not as extreme. The general advice for normal people is to stay away from those areas; this advice is not spoken out loudly by the police, but it is general consensus in each town with such areas. It is like saying: "You want to go there??? You better think twice about it, it'S the place with all the scum around ...". And actually this kind of strategy works pretty well.

Just for the better understanding: Not one commissioner or politician would openly acknowledge strategies like those; yet it is good (old) practice.

All the best!
Liam

so, the strategy i'm getting here is, run and hide, you can't defend yourself so you are at the mercy of the criminals. that is unacceptable to me.placing myself at the mercy of criminals is never an option, which is why even though i can't carry a gun in maryland, i always have my knife and flashlight, and i always have other options nearby, like a machette in my emergency bag (the machette serves multiple purposes in an emergency, not just self defense.)

[yarri]

I don't honestly know if its the AR, the security alarms or the 100 targets with bulls eyes in the recycle bin that have kept them safe either way for now they are safe and not victims of violence. Liem, I've never seen the wire so I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm sorry.

[LiamKerrington]

I don't honestly know if its the AR, the security alarms or the 100 targets with bulls eyes in the recycle bin that have kept them safe either way for now they are safe and not victims of violence. Liem, I've never seen the wire so I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm sorry.

The Wire: You missed something.
Ok, let me rephrase: Think about a town with ten streets. In the beginning the level of crime is equal in each street. Then the police starts controlling nine of ten streets more thoroughly, while the last remaining street remains less controlled. The criminals start feeling better there; they establish kind of "their" own sub-culture in this street. And the police let's them do so. Every now and then, though, the police makes a razzia in the street - especially if they observe raised activities in drugs, dealer-activities, crime-overlord-stuff etc. After such razzias things remain the same - nine well protected streets, one not so well.
Streets like this earn a certain "reputation", and less adventurous people simply stay away.
Again: No official strategy, and politicians wouldn't give any statement on things like this; streets like this are not really accepted, but simply lived with ...

All the best!
Liam

[yarri]

I wrote this, but I am not saying this. I just say: In a minority of cases even self-defense may go horribly wrong. There is no reason to question self-defense in general, though. That's why I clarified that I don't like sticking with "extreme" examples. They may be able to emphasize certain problems; but they won't help answering fundamental questions of principle.

What I do here is no less then testing the different borders of this topic.




You are right. Self-defense and revenge are two very different things. And I am sorry that I put them both together, although they have nothing to do with each other. And truth is, some people tend to act irrationally out of misunderstandings to avenge their hurt or false pride - maybe even with guns. It is needless to say that this kind of action is shit. Meanwhile other people act in self-defense. And in both situations things may get out of control; this is what I intended to say.

As for quoting The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Yes, it is a fantasy-fiction; it is nothing else but a huge fairy tale. But it is written by a J.R.R. Tolkien, who was more then just a fairy-tale-storyteller and who di more then just right a fantasy-novel. And although Gandalf, who I recited, is as fictitious as the tale, there is much truth in the words Tolkien gave him and I recited.

All the best!
Liam

Those that act in revenge are criminals. A broken heart, loss if property etc are no reasons to use a gun.


And I know who Tolkien is

[yarri]

The Wire: You missed something.
Ok, let me rephrase: Think about a town with ten streets. In the beginning the level of crime is equal in each street. Then the police starts controlling nine of ten streets more thoroughly, while the last remaining street remains less controlled. The criminals start feeling better there; they establish kind of "their" own sub-culture in this street. And the police let's them do so. Every now and then, though, the police makes a razzia in the street - especially if they observe raised activities in drugs, dealer-activities, crime-overlord-stuff etc. After such razzias things remain the same - nine well protected streets, one not so well.
Streets like this earn a certain "reputation", and less adventurous people simply stay away.
Again: No official strategy, and politicians wouldn't give any statement on things like this; streets like this are not really accepted, but simply lived with ...

All the best!
Liam

I'm sure the families on street number 10 appricate the lack of police protection. Criminal behavior should never be tolerated