Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Defending yourself from what?

[Truean]

[This post has been moved here http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=85981.msg2980743#msg2980743 where a more but not entirely complete consideration of the subject is provided.]

[Max White]

B.) Duty to retreat
One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.

So does that imply that if somebody breaks into your house, you are obliged to hide in your wardrobe before you take a shot at them?

[Frumple]

Defending yourself from what?

Generally home invasion, when you're talking home storage.

As for the options, even given A, why is the small decrease in accidental shootings from implementing B (i.e. restricting owners rights, which it would be if you implemented that in the states) an acceptable solution? You would almost certainly have better results by better educating your firearm owners.

[snip]

Yeah, not sure about the particulars, but from what I understand in Florida, all you need to be legally allowed to respond with lethal force is unlawful entry. It's probably more complicated than that, but we've certainly not had any major news-type things hit that indicate otherwise.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

B.) Duty to retreat
One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.

So does that imply that if somebody breaks into your house, you are obliged to hide in your wardrobe before you take a shot at them?

I think it is meant to prevent self-defense from being used in cases in which the defendant did not cause the danger, but knowingly put themselves in harm's way when they could have done otherwise.

[Max White]

Generally home invasion, when you're talking home storage.

Oh, so criminals breaking into your house?
Didn't we agree that gun laws don't affect crime, so no point in this argument?

Once could argue that a wardrobe big enough for you to hide in would be a much better investment than a gun.

[Descan]

If Ohio has a castle-doctrine style law, that might be entangled in cases of self-defence. Truean'd have to say yay or nay to be sure, though. >_>

[Pnx]

Hmm, sorry, can't seem to find that. I did find this though.

Homicides per capita, that is any homicide, not just shootings.

Firstly, I'm noticing that in general, the US is a lot worse than Australia. The big stand out over here is NT, where we have the most relax gun laws. Anybody who knows more about US culture see any patterns for murder per capita and gun restrictions?

The distribution of murders in the US looks like it's heavily influenced by drugs. Most drugs in the US come from Mexico, or are produced in South America and smuggled through Mexico (or they just go up the coast). The big exceptions are generally marijuana and meth, which can both be produced locally. It can still be easier to bribe/evade authorities in Mexico though, so it's not uncommon to see meth produced in Mexico then smuggled across the border. I guess it's probably more difficult and less worth it to go further north...

Wow, that was largely irrelevant wasn't it? I guess I'll shut up now.

[Max White]

No that is fine. I'm not sure on any figures for NT in Australia, but if stereotype holds any value, it would have the highest drug usage.

[Criptfeind]

Does Russia not have any way of splitting up their areas?

[Truean]

Damn post button hit too soon.... Hang on....

[Max White]

Does Russia not have any way of splitting up their areas?

You would think that? Seriously, why don't more countries have states?

[Frumple]

Didn't we agree that gun laws don't affect crime, so no point in this argument?

I see your strawman, and raise you a stop, s'il vous plais.

You specifically questioned defense; when people have guns for defense in their home, it is generally for defense from home invasion. Most of the folks doing so never use the weapon for such. Some do, quite rarely. It's irrelevant to actual crime rates why people have weapons in their home for defense -- "makes them feel safer" is sufficient, in that case, if they are storing the weapon for defense.

It's also a very strongly reasonable position: Peoples lives have, in reality, been saved and home invasions prevented due to in-house gun storage. That resonates very strongly with gun owners. Yes, it's possible that there may be a statistics-level net malus involved (though quite strongly indicated to be very small, if it exists), but you asked for peoples reasons, not the statistics-level impact.

And yes, I'm entirely aware how that can be taken too far -- there are, in fact, laws against booby trapping a home.

The real question would be this:

As for the options, even given A, why is the small decrease in accidental shootings from implementing B (i.e. restricting owners rights, which it would be if you implemented that in the states) an acceptable solution? You would almost certainly have better results by better educating your firearm owners.

E: Minor apologizes for tone, by the way. Headache, so I'm a bit brusque when I'm vaguely attempting to actually think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And yes, I'm entirely aware how that can be taken too far -- there are, in fact, laws against booby trapping a home.

Which is good, because there are legitimate reasons to forcefully enter someone's home (injured owner, missing owner, ect.) that would be risky if you could have unmanned traps inside.

[Max White]

I see your strawman, and raise you a stop, s'il vous plais.

You specifically questioned defense; when people have guns for defense in their home, it is generally for defense from home invasion. Most of the folks doing so never use the weapon for such. Some do, quite rarely. It's irrelevant to actual crime rates why people have weapons in their home for defense -- "makes them feel safer" is sufficient, in that case, if they are storing the weapon for defense.

It's also a very strongly reasonable position: Peoples lives have, in reality, been saved and home invasions prevented due to in-house gun storage. That resonates very strongly with gun owners. Yes, it's possible that there may be a statistics-level net malus involved (though quite strongly indicated to be very small, if it exists), but you asked for peoples reasons, not the statistics-level impact.

And yes, I'm entirely aware how that can be taken too far -- there are, in fact, laws against booby trapping a home.

The real question would be this:

As for the options, even given A, why is the small decrease in accidental shootings from implementing B (i.e. restricting owners rights, which it would be if you implemented that in the states) an acceptable solution? You would almost certainly have better results by better educating your firearm owners.

Even so, it would show up on rate of crimes. Breaking into somebodies home is a crime, is it not? As such, guns do nothing to deter criminals from breaking into your home.

As for "lives have, in reality, been saved and home invasions prevented due to in-house gun storage", well yes, I'm sure in a few cases they have been. I'm also willing to say that in most of those cases, escaping through your back door into the night to call the police at a neighbours house would have also saved them, without the need for a gun, and in cases where a family member was mistaken for an intruder and shot would far outweigh times when this was impossible.


We have B here in Australia. You aren't allowed to keep a gun loaded, assembled or outside a strongbox. Over here, there isn't even a gun problem, or a break in problem. Neither are an issue. Nobody is pushing for looser gun laws because of home break ins, and we have minimal rate of accidental shootings. The few you will hear about are from people breaking the law when they go out shooting and get drunk.