|
Florida republicans pass bill okaying shooting in public (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
i had a conversation last summer at work with an engineer from detroit about guns. he told me he has two handguns at home and i asked him why. he simply said "cause i live in detroit" so i proceded to ask him if why he felt he needed a gun, and he said to protect me from other people with guns. but when i asked him weather or not he had ever seen a gunfight or heard gunshots, he said no to both. yet he still felt the need to keep two loaded handguns in his house, one in his night stand and the other in the top of his closet in the living room, neither of them locked or guarded in any way. people who leave their guns "at the ready" are more responsible for stupid deaths and killings than anyone else. all some yahoo has to do is walk into your house and grab a fully loaded weapon out of your closet.
|
See the problem with this analogy is that it only takes one...
Has he ever been involved in a gun fight? No...but it only takes one gun shot and he could be dead. So why should he wait till it happends? He takes measures to prevent it.
Now the fact that he easily tells everyone where the guns are THAT'S the ed up part...that's actually the problem, not the fact that he has them.
The thing is...the human body is a pretty fragile thing with lots of soft spots. I could kill a human being with my bare hands if I wanted to, and so could you. And any yahoo could do the same. You can pick up a rock on the street, hit someone with a car...man people can get really creative.
So...the fact that someone HAS a gun is really not the point, nor is it the problem. The problem is (and most of you lost the direction of this thread) WHO decides when this self defence is neccessary, and HOW exactly do you decide that? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
The thing is...the human body is a pretty fragile thing with lots of soft spots. I could kill a human being with my bare hands if I wanted to, and so could you. And any yahoo could do the same. You can pick up a rock on the street, hit someone with a car...man people can get really creative.
So...the fact that someone HAS a gun is really not the point, nor is it the problem. The problem is (and most of you lost the direction of this thread) WHO decides when this self defence is neccessary, and HOW exactly do you decide that? |
A deer is a pretty fragile thing with lots of soft spots... conceivably I can kill one with my bare hands as well, however, in order to do so I would need to chase the ing thing down, jump on it, immobolize it and exhibit enough force upon it to cause it fatal trauma. Alternatively, I can grab my .270 aim it at that nice soft spot behind it's front shoulder and move my right index finger about 2.5cm.
Guns are more likely to cause a fatal injury then any other method of violent attack by virtue of the fact that they cause the most damage with the least effort. If you were to attack me with your bare hands I may be able to defend myself (maybe not as I'm a pretty big ) at least long enough that someone may intervien and I will not suffer serious injury. If you attack me with a .45 you can inflict mortal injuries on me before you have come within 25 yards of me, I cannot defend against that.
The fact that someone has a gun is the root of the problem. Deciding how to use it and when to use it is pretty easy if you don't have it. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
He's got GUNS! ;)
 |
|
|
| starsearcher |
I totally agree that if you don't have a gun to use it solves many of the problems :stongue:. But what I meant by my analogy is that if nobody had guns (as some of you guys say it should be) then there are other measures to kill someone even without the use of guns. So if you want to kill someone, you can still do it.
But the thing is that guns and gun ownership is part of the American culture, it's like "ingrown". Many have guns as a hobby, many have guns cause they are collectors, and many have guns for self defense. You can't just change them overnight and erode that part of their culture. Personally I have nothing against guns, the little kid inside me loves them (not cause they kill people but cause it's cool). So I don't have the problem with the guns...I have a problem with the stupid law.
Besides, the argument that having a gun makes you want to use it against someone is hardly valid. I definitely disagree with it.
If you really want to get a gun (even here in TO) you can and it's really easy apparently (from an interview with some guy in regent park who was on tv the other day). So if your intention is to shoot someone then you can do it regardless. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
I totally agree that if you don't have a gun to use it solves many of the problems :stongue:. But what I meant by my analogy is that if nobody had guns (as some of you guys say it should be) then there are other measures to kill someone even without the use of guns. So if you want to kill someone, you can still do it.
But the thing is that guns and gun ownership is part of the American culture, it's like "ingrown". Many have guns as a hobby, many have guns cause they are collectors, and many have guns for self defense. You can't just change them overnight and erode that part of their culture. Personally I have nothing against guns, the little kid inside me loves them (not cause they kill people but cause it's cool). So I don't have the problem with the guns...I have a problem with the stupid law.
Besides, the argument that having a gun makes you want to use it against someone is hardly valid. I definitely disagree with it.
If you really want to get a gun (even here in TO) you can and it's really easy apparently (from an interview with some guy in regent park who was on tv the other day). So if your intention is to shoot someone then you can do it regardless. |
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against guns... hell I have guns and until recently even had hand guns. The point I'm trying to make is that the easier it is to get guns, carry/transport them, the greater the risk for increased gun related homicides. With this law in FLA carrying and using a gun become far too easy and carries less consequence.
I did not argue that having a gun makes you want to use it against a person... I have never considered such a thing. What you cannot deny, however, is that if someone is inclined to act violently against another and that person happens to have a gun on their person there is an increased likelihood that they will use said gun to act out their violent inclinations then they would have had they not had the gun on their person.
As I said before, getting a Possession and Aquisition License for a long gun is not difficult. Getting a Restricted Firearms License (what you need for most hand guns) is much more difficult. Getting a Prohibited Arms License (what you need for assult rifles, explosives, some handguns, machine pistoles) is nearly impossible. Very few people are going to carry a long gun with them wherever they go, therefore they are less of a threat to the general public. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Reasonable is not an objective standard... it is subjective. Reasonable, in law, is determined by the trier of fact (judge or jury) in each individual instance.
Essentially, what is reasonable is what the trier of fact would have done in the same situation.... |
Absolutely not. It's not what the trier of fact would have done, it's what the semi-mythical reasonable person would have done in that situation. It's an objective test.
| quote: |
A more objective standard (while still largely subjective) would be Canada's self defence standard. Normally in Canada you can only use a force to defend yourself that is proportionate to the force used against you.... for instance; attacker is unarmed = you must be unarmed or use a non-deadly object (a bat is a good example), attacker has a bat = you can use a eadged weapon, attacker has an eadged weapon = you can use a eadged weapon or firearm, attacker has a firearm you can use a firearm. This is based on past case law as opposed to any statute so it is still subjective but it is clearly less subjective then "reasonable" |
That's only part of it. See here: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons...section1p2.html
The Florida law uses an objective reasonableness standard. Thus, the nutty behaviour predicted by other posters here would not be allowed. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Absolutely not. It's not what the trier of fact would have done, it's what the semi-mythical reasonable person would have done in that situation. It's an objective test.
That's only part of it. See here: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons...section1p2.html
The Florida law uses an objective reasonableness standard. Thus, the nutty behaviour predicted by other posters here would not be allowed. |
Who do you thing the trier of fact will base their interpretation of a reasonable person on? In nearly all cases they base this on themselves because the law will hold a person to be reasonable if they are capable, of the age of majority, and conduct themselves with the prudence that normally governs human condunct. Nearly everyone believes themselves to be reasonable, and if they can picture themselves doing it then it is reasonable.
I know I only gave part of what is looked at for self-defence in Canada as the test applys all sorts of individual factors such as the size and strength of the attacker verses the victim, gender, etc. However, you must admit it is more objective then the FLA standard of reasonable because at least ours is codified in case law whereas there is no hard definition of what a reasonable person is.... that's why legislators use words like reasonable and prudent in legislation... to give the court room to interpret.
Like I said earlier, the problem with this self-defence standard is that is makes it very easy for someone to murder another person, argue self defence and get off because all they need to do is make one person believe they felt "threatened" |
|
|
| Spam |
Number of gun-related deaths in Canada, 187
Number of gun-related deaths in the USA, 11,000+
I forget what year those numbers are from... probably 1999 or 2000, anyway...
That stat said it all for me.
"But Spam, they have a bigger population, of COURSE they'll have more deaths"
Ok fine:
Canada's population: 32mil
Usa's population: 300mil(ish)
So about 10 times the size of Canada's population.
187 X 10 = 1870
There's still a 9000 death discrepency there... Why would that be? |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
There's still a 9000 death discrepency there... Why would that be? |
That would be because of a cultural issue...NOT because they have guns and we don't. Sure it plays a role but that's NOT the main problem which IMO most people here are confused with. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
That would be because of a cultural issue...NOT because they have guns and we don't. Sure it plays a role but that's NOT the main problem which IMO most people here are confused with. |
You're right, it's a distribution of wealth that creates the groundwork for the violent society the US has, however, as I've mentioned before, violence with readily availible weaponry is more severe then without. If the guns weren't in the pockets/purses/closets/nightstands then the gun death rate would be lower. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
BOOOOOOOOOOYAH!
| quote: | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper comparatively summarizes the Canadian experience with regards to firearms ownership and victimisation in relation to eight other Western industrialized societies, as measured in the International Crime (Victim) Survey 1996 (IC(V)S). The countries included in this comparison are: England and Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Austria, and the United States. In particular, the comparison focuses on a new set of questions within the survey which relate to firearms. The IC(V)S queries a random population sample regarding whether or not they have been victimized, the nature of their victimization, attitudes toward crime and the criminal justice system, and household possession of a firearm. Questions and methodology are uniform across countries, and are therefore not based upon police statistics.
The survey indicated:
* Canada was in the mid-range of firearms ownership. Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands.
* Among the regions of Canada, firearms ownership varied from 14% owning at least one gun in Ontario to 36% owning at least one gun in the Atlantic provinces. In four regions, gun owners predominately owned rifles (the Atlantic Provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and the Prairie Provinces). In Quebec, gun owners mostly owned shotguns (76.9%). The percentage of gun owners who owned a handgun varied from 6.0% in Quebec to 16.1% in British Columbia.
* Almost all Canadian households with a firearm possessed a long gun (95.1%). These households represented 19.2% of all Canadian households. In contrast, 12% of Canadian gun owning households possessed a handgun and this represented 2.3% of all Canadian households. Only about 2.2% of Canadian households owned both a handgun and a long gun.
* In eight countries, hunting or sports were the most common reasons for possession of a gun, with Switzerland's requirement for military possession being the only exception. Canadian respondents were most likely to report that the gun was owned for hunting (72.7%); this trend is consistent across the country's five regions.
* Canada was in a group of five countries in which 3% to 4% of respondents reported being robbed at least once in the last five years. One percent of Canadians reported they were victims of armed robbery and 0.42% reported specifically that they were victims of a firearm-related attack. These percentages were similar to the rates of all other countries, with the exception of the United States. Respondents from the United States were more likely to be victims of an armed attack and much more likely to be a victim of a firearm-related attack.
* Respondents in all countries who were the victim of a violent offence were more likely to be assaulted or threatened than robbed in the last five years; Canadian respondents were in the middle range of likelihood (12.7%). Assaults and threats with firearms were most common in the United States where over 2% of respondents were assaulted or threatened with a gun in the last five years.
* In all countries, gun ownership was related to size of place of residence. Residents of the smallest communities were most likely to own a firearm and residents of the largest communities were least likely to own a firearm. This trend was particularly evident in Canada with respect to long gun ownership. Among Canadian respondents from small towns, 33.6% owned a long gun, in contrast to 1.2% owning a long gun in the largest cities. The relationship was not as clear for mid-range cities in the 10,000 - 1,000,000 population range.
|
Source: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd97-3a-e.html
Sems like we're not all that different from the US! :rolleyes:
And that second bolded part should go into the other thread of how safe we feel in TO |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Who do you thing the trier of fact will base their interpretation of a reasonable person on? |
That standard is laid out in the common law. The jury's job is to apply that standard to the facts in the case.
| quote: | | In nearly all cases they base this on themselves because the law will hold a person to be reasonable if they are capable, of the age of majority, and conduct themselves with the prudence that normally governs human condunct. Nearly everyone believes themselves to be reasonable, and if they can picture themselves doing it then it is reasonable. |
No, because the jury isn't on trial, the defendant is. What the juror would have done in that situation is irrelevant - what matters is whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable (based on the objective standard) given the circumstances.
| quote: |
Like I said earlier, the problem with this self-defence standard is that is makes it very easy for someone to murder another person, argue self defence and get off because all they need to do is make one person believe they felt "threatened" |
No, what you just described is the subjective standard. Under the Florida law, it doesn't matter that one acts based feeling threatened. What matters is whether the act was consistant with what a reasonable person would have done in that situation (objective standard). |
|
|
|
|
