ridiculous firearms controls
ridiculous firearms controls
The murderer was a retired cop. Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?
Goob didn't say anything about Lorric either :P
That being said, there is literally nothing about this story I understand. From someone carrying a gun, to carrying it into a movie theater, to shooting an unarmed person, everything in this is so far beyond my daily life that my only reaction can be summed up by a "wat".
ridiculous firearms controls
The murderer was a retired cop. Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?
ridiculous firearms controls
The murderer was a retired cop. Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?
The point is that the retiree here had demonstrated an entire career and more of trustworthiness to carry a firearm.
And I personally don't really care much for the gun debate since it's a bit pointless trying to talk about it outside the context of a culture's history. You can't really put severely limiting gun restrictions in place when none have existed for like a 100 years and everyone and their kitchen sink is already equipped with concealed carry. I reckon to gun supporters, telling them that guns aren't okay would probably feel similar to if someone told us that our internet should be censored and monitored as heavily as it is in China. Sure, the Chinese are used to it, but by and large, the rest of the world sure as hell isn't.I've seen the culture argument before. And it may well be true. But why Americans don't just look at it and their minds don't scream that it's unbelievably wrong and should be done away with is beyond my understanding. Instead they cling to their guns as if they're as important as food and water.
Some of us do.And I personally don't really care much for the gun debate since it's a bit pointless trying to talk about it outside the context of a culture's history. You can't really put severely limiting gun restrictions in place when none have existed for like a 100 years and everyone and their kitchen sink is already equipped with concealed carry. I reckon to gun supporters, telling them that guns aren't okay would probably feel similar to if someone told us that our internet should be censored and monitored as heavily as it is in China. Sure, the Chinese are used to it, but by and large, the rest of the world sure as hell isn't.I've seen the culture argument before. And it may well be true. But why Americans don't just look at it and their minds don't scream that it's unbelievably wrong and should be done away with is beyond my understanding.
I'm just going to take the point of view of the ignorant European dude here: There's practically almost no guns around here that can be freely owned.Realy ?
The United States is a very large place composed of many different groups who's ideologies don't all agree. Painting it with a single broad brush is lazy thinking.
It's also large enough that while gun violence is high for a first world democracy its not so rampant that it causes the populace at large to feel a clear and present danger over it. The US is a long way from being Mogadishu or Escape From New York.
Many United States citizens zealously believe in individual freedoms and abhor the idea of government intervention in their daily lives(not that that was enough to curb the Patriot Act and the NSA but hey 9/11 scared the **** out of the populace). This attitude can trace its roots all the way back to the colonial days. In many ways this concept of individual freedom and by extension firearms forms an important pillar of US cultural identity. So while standing on the outside its easy to go derp derp about it on the inside its essentially a 200 plus year old complex issue.
The United States is a very large place composed of many different groups who's ideologies don't all agree. Painting it with a single broad brush is lazy thinking.
The United States is a very large place composed of many different groups who's ideologies don't all agree. Painting it with a single broad brush is lazy thinking.
But that's what they keep doing to us!
Fear/Being afraid of all kinds of things appears to be one of the major motivations.
Having a gun, makes you less afraid I guess? If the issue is rooted in fear then it just does not have to be rational at all.
The United States is a very large place composed of many different groups who's ideologies don't all agree. Painting it with a single broad brush is lazy thinking.
But that's what they keep doing to us!
I guess it's kind of like this, oversimplified, in a nation with 5% criminals/crazies and 95% normals.
Guns illegal:
30% of criminals/crazy people have guns. 0.1% of normal people have guns. In total, 1.595% of population has guns.
Pros: Not a lot of guns floating around. Less likely for dumb shootings to happen.
Cons: It appears only the criminals and crazies have guns. Uh oh. Guess we need to rely on police being the only good guys with guns.
Now see, as an American, this seems utterly insane to me. I understand that gun crime in most of Europe is comparatively much lower than in the United States, but there's always going to be a chance that you come across a criminal wielding a firearm, and if all your officers have to combat them are a bunch of billy clubs and tasers...well, you're just asking for a higher bodycount. Seconds matter when there's a shooter present, and not having your local officers harmed seems like a massive liability. Hell, I remember back in college right after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, many students were upset when it was learned that our campus police officers kept their firearms locked in their cruiser trunks; we wanted them able to respond to a threat at a moment's notice without wasting any time.ridiculous firearms controls
The murderer was a retired cop. Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?
Actually, that's something cultural. Most European countries restrict cops from carrying guns :
- local police forces in Germany and France usually do not carry guns
- national or federal police forces carry guns, but they can only use it a last resort, in cases of self defence, and if a non lethal solution has already failed
- military patrols during anti-terrorist alerts have empty magazines
Every police officer I know keeps his/her gun at home in a locked box.
I guess it is all about threat reduction, avoiding an escalation between police forces and criminals. And of course, at some point, sometimes the police will get shot at, but it's still better than gunfights on a daily basis, or having the risk of being shot dead during an ID control or a road control gone wrong.
Too bad it only works in countries with an already low gun violence rate.
Now see, as an American, this seems utterly insane to me. I understand that gun crime in most of Europe is comparatively much lower than in the United States, but there's always going to be a chance that you come across a criminal wielding a firearm, and if all your officers have to combat them are a bunch of billy clubs and tasers...well, you're just asking for a higher bodycount. Seconds matter when there's a shooter present, and not having your local officers harmed seems like a massive liability. Hell, I remember back in college right after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, many students were upset when it was learned that our campus police officers kept their firearms locked in their cruiser trunks; we wanted them able to respond to a threat at a moment's notice without wasting any time.ridiculous firearms controls
The murderer was a retired cop. Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?
Actually, that's something cultural. Most European countries restrict cops from carrying guns :
- local police forces in Germany and France usually do not carry guns
- national or federal police forces carry guns, but they can only use it a last resort, in cases of self defence, and if a non lethal solution has already failed
- military patrols during anti-terrorist alerts have empty magazines
Every police officer I know keeps his/her gun at home in a locked box.
I guess it is all about threat reduction, avoiding an escalation between police forces and criminals. And of course, at some point, sometimes the police will get shot at, but it's still better than gunfights on a daily basis, or having the risk of being shot dead during an ID control or a road control gone wrong.
Too bad it only works in countries with an already low gun violence rate.
Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and removing the means doesn't ultimately solve it.
Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and
It's true, though, that removing guns would reduce the number of suicides and gun accidents. However, the former is again, a symptom of a much bigger problem. I believe that in every case, the root cause should be worked on, not the symptoms. Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and removing the means doesn't ultimately solve it.
The argument that the US has been traditionally been a "gun-toting" country doesn't really seem to work, since Australia seemed to have the exact same profile (including the annual mass shootings) until their modern gun legislation.
Soon after authorities say a retired Tampa police captain shot a fellow moviegoer Monday over a cellphone dispute, a question now common in Florida arose:
Could he be defended under “stand your ground”?
Under state law, if a person fears death or great bodily harm, he can use deadly force, even if retreat is possible. Since it was passed in 2005, the defence has been used in more than 200 cases. In many, the defendant has gone free.
Whats exactly is wrong with Floridas stand your ground law? I dont think there should be any duty to retreat and as far as I know some variation of SYG law is common all over the world.
[
Oh, where to start...
First off, no, SYG is not common at all. Self-defence laws recognize the right of the defender to utilize deadly force when fending off an attacker, which has been a legal custom for a long time that I don't think anyone sees as problematic.
However.
In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.
What SYG does, effectively, is lowering the bar for when a killing in self-defence is acceptable. It makes it easier for the defendant to argue that his actions were justified. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing, as it opens the door for rather unjustified and excessive uses of force to be retroactively legitimized to a much greater extent.
I should add that, here in Germany, our self-defense legislation includes very strong "Stand Your Ground"-type language, which goes even further than what SYG does in the US. Around here, defenders only have to use "the weakest possible method" of defense, and there is absolutely no duty whatsoever to retreat.
But, and this is the big difference, we also have very strong gun legislation, which makes pretty sure that the only people carrying guns will be either police or criminals (and criminals packing heat will have a very bad time when caught); this ensures that the strongest methods of defense are usually limited to hitting people with blunt objects, something much less likely to end in a fatality.
The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.
This is not about about "morality" (or what you call "shifting the blame"), this is about saving lives, even lives of criminals when possible, to achieve a global lower level of violence.[
Oh, where to start...
First off, no, SYG is not common at all. Self-defence laws recognize the right of the defender to utilize deadly force when fending off an attacker, which has been a legal custom for a long time that I don't think anyone sees as problematic.
However.
In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.
What SYG does, effectively, is lowering the bar for when a killing in self-defence is acceptable. It makes it easier for the defendant to argue that his actions were justified. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing, as it opens the door for rather unjustified and excessive uses of force to be retroactively legitimized to a much greater extent.
SYG laws are common all over the world, it is in fact duty to retreat that is in the minority:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/is_stand_your_ground_unique_to_the_united_states.html
I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.
The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.
I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.
The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.
Lets wait for the verdict before judging Floridas self defense law based on this case. I really dont think this case is going to depend on SYG law in any way.
I agree that in the US where guns are common, duty to retreat may act as a deterrent and help prevent some shootings and save some lives, both innocent and lives of criminals. But as I said, it can also lead to some innocent people who really only defended themselves end up in prison, so it is not a very just law and there is a reason no duty to retreat is more widespread.
Taken together, it is a tradeoff I am not comfortable to make.
That's the first time I've heard this. I've always hated self defence restrictions. What kind of fool turns his back to an enemy? What kind of fool takes away his advantages by meeting someone on even ground with "necessarry force" rather than overwhelming force? I want to be free to hit an aggressor with everything I've got.I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.
Duty to retreat is not about physical retreat in the army sense, but rather about demonstrating a non-hostile stance. Freezing in a threatening situation counts, as well as calmly approaching the violent person and trying to calm him down.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/u]
Forcible felony.—"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
QuoteForcible felony.—"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
How's that for scary? How many members of the gun-toting public do you think can tell the difference between aggravated assault and common assault? Common battery and aggravated battery? Robbery versus break and enter?
There are a lot of reasons Florida is OK with people killing other people for.
That is what duty to retreat means - proportionality. If one can get away, then killing your assailant is unreasonable and not self-defense.
Since Florida grants concealed carry permits via its Department of Agriculture, rather than, say a criminal justice agency, the state cannot use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to screen applicants.
However.
In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/movie-theatre-shooting-man-texting-florida
Thought that was great reading on the subject. Although when I got to this bitQuoteSince Florida grants concealed carry permits via its Department of Agriculture, rather than, say a criminal justice agency, the state cannot use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to screen applicants.
What the actual ****?
A lot of cops are pretty much scum with power issues. Not all of 'em, not even as many as people will tell you, but there are some pretty bad people in the force.
The 6-foot-1, 270-pound Reeves, who was also with his wife for the matinee at the Grove 16 Theatre in suburban Tampa, left the auditorium, apparently to complain to management, police said. Reeves returned "irritated," a witness said. The argument continued and popcorn was thrown.
The 6-foot-1, 270-pound ReevesWhoa, he's even more built than I thought he was. That's not built for a 71 year old, that's built full stop.
Dunno if the usual products of the donuts+steroids diet qualify as built, but definitely big.Hmmm, yes, I'm going too far by saying built full stop. No bulging muscles. Big will do nicely. Not fat, not built, big.
Certainly didn't expect the murderer to be a 71 year old retired cop. Was expecting some punk.Certainly didn't expect a 43 year old father to throw a bag of popcorn.