Is it Right to Club Bears?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by slandrum

If you are white.

If I may please resonate strongly with that.

Fear is a basic and fundamental survival strategy input. It is the most basic of the programming. Evolution in action, if you will.

What I find disturbing is the highest life form currently known is still fighting amongst themselves because of stupid things like the chemistry of the skin (or eyes, or hair, etc).

Fear of the other worked "well enough" when we were just working from instinct. And, yet, alliances were still formed.

Why can't we get past that now in this modern-day age of "enlightenment"?

This is a sincere question. I'm sincerely confused.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by slandrum

If you are white.

Or of the person you shoot is Black.

We just passed the seventh anniversary of the April 4, 2015 killing of Walter Scott. He was shot eight times in the back by Officer Michael Slager while he was fleeing, following a traffic stop and a scuffle.

Officer Slager falsified his report, and possibly tampered with evidence at the scene (he picked something up from the site of the scuffle, and dropped it next to Scott's body.)

When a bystander's cell phone video became publicly known, multiple investigations ensued. Slager was tried on state murder charges. The case ended in a mistrial when the jury "hung" (was unable to reach a unanimous verdict). Slager's defense claimed that Scott may have had possession of Officer Slager's taser. The Great State of South Carolina decided not to retry the case.

Slager subsequently pleaded Guilty to Federal civil rights violation charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

When I was living in Colorado, a police officer at a neighborhood meeting was talking about the "Make My Day" law. He told us that, while it would be legal to shoot an intruder entering your home, if they turned and fled, you could not legally shoot them - it would not be considered self-defense.

It is not clear to me that Officer Slager could "reasonably believe" a fleeing man 20 feet away - even if he had the taser - posed an imminent danger to him.

But there was another reason he could have thought Scott was an imminent threat to his life - the same one I alluded to in this post.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

When I was living in Colorado, a police officer at a neighborhood meeting was talking about the "Make My Day" law. He told us that, while it would be legal to shoot an intruder entering your home, if they turned and fled, you could not legally shoot them - it would not be considered self-defense.

In the incident that I mentioned before (prowler in the area and a parent with a 12 gauge), my parent was advised by the local police to wait for the person to be partially in the house before firing. And then the police said that if you catch the person attempting to leave and fire on them, drag them fully back inside, then call us.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by LaurV

The bear minds its own business unless you poke it with a stick

Please forgive me for this, but I greatly enjoyed this.

[Uncwilly]

Think of the children
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1094364930/firearms-leading-cause-of-death-in-children

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Think of the children

Children need to be taught.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Children need to be taught.

But before they have learned, understood, accepted and integrated your teachings, you keep dangerous things like detergents, medication, guns, grenades, bombs out of their reach.

[Xyzzy]

A few days ago we posted the idea that gun ownership might be a good defense against a tyrannical government.

In our opinion, nobody provided a reasonable argument against that idea.

Our second idea is maybe the police shouldn't be armed with anything that the general population isn't allowed to own.

What are your thoughts?

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

A few days ago we posted the idea that gun ownership might be a good defense against a tyrannical government.

In our opinion, nobody provided a reasonable argument against that idea.

The article's title used the word "abusive," not "tyrannical." I pointed out that the right of gun ownership didn't protect Black Americans from being denied the right to vote - not to mention a failure of "equal protection under the law" such as jobs and housing discrimination.

But to address the article itself:

I think the examples in the article are completely bogus. Citing America's failure in Vietnam as "civilian resistance to unwanted government authority" is absolutely ludicrous IMO. We were not fighting an armed civilian populace. We were fighting trained soldiers.

Claiming that somehow the Weimar Republic's disarming of thr populace helped bring Hitler to power is nonsense. Hitler came to power because his party won an election. The Reichstag passed a law making Hitler dictator.

Citing the Oath Keepers is amusing, seeing as how one of them participating in the Capitol Riot pleaded Guilty to "seditious conspiracy" - trying to overthrow the government. And remember, that riot was an attempt by the sorest of sore losers to nullify the results of a free and fair election.

These folks' attitude is, "The election was unfair because our guy lost." Their guy said so before the election ever took place - he would only lose if the election was "stolen." I think it is fair to say that the 2020 election was the most thoroughly litigated election in the history of the Republic. And there was not a scintilla of evidence of any election fraud on anywhere near the scale it would have taken to change the outcome. So the facts and the law say, their guy losing is the only reason left for refusing to accept the results.

Now, former regime loyalists and hangers-on, and hyper-partisan party members across the nation have enacted rules to prevent those not in their party from voting. In other words, Soviet-style "democracy."

Not to mention preventing minorities or the poor from voting, or redrawing districts to eliminate their representation in government.

So we have the attitude "The election isn't fair unless our guy wins" and "Let's change the rules so The Party can't lose." There's a word for that: tyranny.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

A few days ago we posted the idea that gun ownership might be a good defense against a tyrannical government.

In our opinion, nobody provided a reasonable argument against that idea.

I thought you posted it to show how silly the arguments get. People trying to manufacture a threat in an attempt to ensure they get to keep their guns.

The article didn't address why people should be allowed to carry guns everywhere. People don't need to do that if all they really care about is some "government threat". It's just to show-off and feel powerful.

If people were just honest about the reasons, then it wouldn't be so bad. Some people want guns, to show-off, impress the (shallow) girls, etc., so say that. No need to pretend it is for "defence", "safety", "security" LOL.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

The article didn't address why people should be allowed to carry guns everywhere. People don't need to do that if all they really care about is some "government threat". It's just to show-off and feel powerful.

So having a gun safe or 2 with a few rifles and shotguns and a few dozen handguns and ammo is different than walking around packing?
The family member that I have mentioned before with a gun safe keeps their weapons at home, except when they go out shooting or hunting. They have a single hand gun that is rapidly available, but only to those that know where it is and how to access it.