• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Should people be able to own firearms for self-protection?

No. There is no such thing as your 100% trustworthy model citizen. For example, domestic violence is bad enough when people without guns are involved. Of course organized criminals will still find their ways, but still: An average citizen with easy access to firearms has the potential to be just as dangerous. He shouldn't.
 
With or without guns violence is the same in my opinion. I do agree with you about the domestic violence.
 
I think part of the problem with guns is that there is a moral danger zone where people can shoot someone and claim self defense when their life wasn't actually in danger.

What if some corrupt gun holder has someone trespass on his/her property, and he/she outright shoots him and tries to claim he was attacking?

It's so difficult to maintain control of the corrupt gun holders who shoot before their life is definitely in danger of being lost, and even the ones who let their paranoia get the better of them regarding when that danger is significant enough.

Me? I'm not actually going to say whether I think the gun laws should be heightened or lowered. I don't know. I haven't done enough research to feel like I can give an actual answer. I'm just presenting a problem based on what I /do/ know.
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:
I think part of the problem with guns is that there is a moral danger zone where people can shoot someone and claim self defense when their life wasn't actually in danger.

What if some corrupt gun holder has someone trespass on his/her property, and he/she outright shoots him and tries to claim he was attacking?

It's so difficult to maintain control of the corrupt gun holders who shoot before their life is definitely in danger of being lost, and even the ones who let their paranoia get the better of them regarding when that danger is significant enough.

Me? I'm not actually going to say whether I think the gun laws should be heightened or lowered. I don't know. I haven't done enough research to feel like I can give an actual answer. I'm just presenting a problem based on what I /do/ know.
Click to expand...

If somebody breaks into your home, I support the right to use deadly force.

With self-defense, the jury has to examine the evidence and determine whether or not, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the defendant's use of deadly force was justified. Not everyone who raises that defense automatically gets off.
 
I 100% think they should. Coming from a area where people get robbed, injured and murdered every now and then, they should at least be able to defend themselves from those kind of problems. As long as they don't have any past record of violence or have had any therapy for suicidal thoughts.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
If somebody breaks into your home, I support the right to use deadly force.

With self-defense, the jury has to examine the evidence and determine whether or not, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the defendant's use of deadly force was justified. Not everyone who raises that defense automatically gets off.
Click to expand...

And what if they had no intention of harming you? What if they just run when spotted? Current self defense laws say if you shoot someone for that, you're going to jail for "excessive force".

I have to agree with those laws, because you're /not/ defending your self. You're defending your property, which although it is important, is not as important as a life.

As self defense laws stand, you're not allowed to more than absolutely necessary to stop someone from harming you, within reason. What is too much for any situation is up to a court.
 
Charizard★ said:
I 100% think they should. Coming from a area where people get robbed, injured and murdered every now and then, they should at least be able to defend themselves from those kind of problems. As long as they don't have any past record of violence or have had any therapy for suicidal thoughts.
Click to expand...
What if you have family members who have suicidal thoughts?

There was a boy in my junior high school who shot himself with his dad's gun. That was a while and back and they didn't really give out much detail about it, but I got the impression the dad was normal and kept the gun in a safe place like you're supposed to. Despite that this still happened. I see that as a problem with gun ownership.
 
Scarf said:
What if you have family members who have suicidal thoughts?

There was a boy in my junior high school who shot himself with his dad's gun. That was a while and back and they didn't really give out much detail about it, but I got the impression the dad was normal and kept the gun in a safe place like you're supposed to. Despite that this still happened. I see that as a problem with gun ownership.
Click to expand...
If the boy really was determined to commit suicide, he would have found other ways to do it in the absence of a firearm. You don't prevent suicides by taking away guns, you prevent them by getting people psychological help.
 
Scarf said:
What if you have family members who have suicidal thoughts?
Click to expand...

You could always hide the weapon, and there's other ways of committing suicide. If the person actually was determined to kill themselves, then they could find another way of doing so, as Jack has stated.
 
Jack O'Neill said:
If the boy really was determined to commit suicide, he would have found other ways to do it in the absence of a firearm. You don't prevent suicides by taking away guns, you prevent them by getting people psychological help.
Click to expand...
Psychological help would be best, but not having guns around would also help. Obviously he was determined enough to use a gun. Does that take the same determination as another method? I don't know, but I don't think it necessarily is. Maybe he would have found another way, maybe it would have taken him longer to make the decision with some other method and given his family more time to figure out something was wrong, and maybe he wouldn't have done it at all.
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:


And what if they had no intention of harming you? What if they just run when spotted? Current self defense laws say if you shoot someone for that, you're going to jail for "excessive force".

I have to agree with those laws, because you're /not/ defending your self. You're defending your property, which although it is important, is not as important as a life.

As self defense laws stand, you're not allowed to more than absolutely necessary to stop someone from harming you, within reason. What is too much for any situation is up to a court.
Click to expand...

All that is needed is for the defendant to reasonably believe, as well as any reasonable person would have believe, whether that they or their family were in danger of death of great bodily harm.

Here's what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

They don't have to actually be attack you. The intrusion just has to be one that could lead to a violent attack.
 
Oh God, absolutely not. All it takes is one bad day for someone to go too far with something like that. Fights start all the time after a bad day and a little alcohol. It could become a gun shot instantly if people were armed with them for self-protection. Hell, the guns alone would cause a much greater need for self-protection in itself. It'll be body armour next.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
All that is needed is for the defendant to reasonably believe, as well as any reasonable person would have believe, whether that they or their family were in danger of death of great bodily harm.

Here's what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

They don't have to actually be attack you. The intrusion just has to be one that could lead to a violent attack.
Click to expand...

If believing was all it took to convict someone of attempted murder...
Well, our legal system would be very broken.

The jury are the ones that need to believe the defendant had reason to shoot under the self defence laws. If you shoot a random thief who ran with food the moment he realized you were there and wasn't even carrying a weapon let alone a gun, who do you think is going to look like the bad guy? You can't just do whatever you want to a criminal. You've gotta make a reasonable attempt at treating them fairly. That being said, threatening an intruder with a weapon and shooting if they try and "pull a fast one" of any sort is a lot fairer, though arguably still a grey area.
 
WHISBII said:
That seems like a good idea. Registration would have to be a requirement and a bane on certain weapons should listed.
Click to expand...
A gun registry will make it easier for a dictatorial government to confiscate weapons. One of the reasons the Second Amendment was created to allow citizens to resist a dictatorial government.
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:


If believing was all it took to convict someone of attempted murder...
Well, our legal system would be very broken.

The jury are the ones that need to believe the defendant had reason to shoot under the self defence laws. If you shoot a random thief who ran with food the moment he realized you were there and wasn't even carrying a weapon let alone a gun, who do you think is going to look like the bad guy? You can't just do whatever you want to a criminal. You've gotta make a reasonable attempt at treating them fairly. That being said, threatening an intruder with a weapon and shooting if they try and "pull a fast one" of any sort is a lot fairer, though arguably still a grey area.
Click to expand...

The strict beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is required to convict. To acquit a defendant using an affirmative defense like self-defense, what needs to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) in my state is: 1) The defendant reasonably believed that the victim was likely to cause death or great bodily harm to them or any other person legally present in their home; and 2) Any other reasonably person would believe the same thing. If the defendant can do this, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove that self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The strict beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is required to convict. To acquit a defendant using an affirmative defense like self-defense, what needs to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) in my state is: 1) The defendant reasonably believed that the victim was likely to cause death or great bodily harm to them or any other person legally present in their home; and 2) Any other reasonably person would believe the same thing. If the defendant can do this, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove that self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

That isn't how the real world works. Now I'm going to prove it.
https://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html
While the statutes defining the legitimate use of force in defense of a person vary from state to state, the general rule makes a clear and important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury. However, a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.
Click to expand...

Now for an excerpt.
A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury. However, a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.
Click to expand...

Notice. That person needs to have a reasonable reason to suspect serious physical injury or death. Not the other way around. Having a break-in in your house is not very reasonable. People have been sent to jail for shooting burglars before and they will continue to get sent to jail for jumping that gun. (No pun intended.)

You just can't use guns that liberally.
 
Considering how I live next to a bunch of hoodlums with the nerve to threaten us with an automatic when we didn't 'stay on our side of the alley', I'd say yes, so long as it's a long rifle or vintage machine gun (Pre-1984) at most, no pistols or carbines...
 
Yes, I think they should. You need to fight off bad people if they attack you.
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:


That isn't how the real world works. Now I'm going to prove it.
https://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-law.html


Now for an excerpt.


Notice. That person needs to have a reasonable reason to suspect serious physical injury or death. Not the other way around. Having a break-in in your house is not very reasonable. People have been sent to jail for shooting burglars before and they will continue to get sent to jail for jumping that gun. (No pun intended.)

You just can't use guns that liberally.
Click to expand...

You have proved nothing. Self-defense law varies GREATLY from state-to-states based on political lines. "Blue states" tend to be stricter on when the use of deadly force is justified, while "red states" tend to lean towards towards the castle doctrine. In the real world, the law is not the same everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top