BangWhizzClack wrote:The Worldwide Popular Revolt Against Proportionality in Self-Defense Laws (2007)
A great read if anyone is interested. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... _id=961468
Woden wrote:BangWhizzClack wrote:The Worldwide Popular Revolt Against Proportionality in Self-Defense Laws (2007)
A great read if anyone is interested. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... _id=961468
A short and interesting read. Thanks.
Bugman wrote:Yep, quite interesting but surely that can't be real name......Renee Lettow Lerner. The again, what's in a name?
womble wrote:Deadly force because of fear anxiety panic, threat of attack.
So if I’m tripping balls and jehovas witness want to come inside and talk to me i can just blow them away. Because I’m thinking holy s**t alien invasion why do they look like giant pandas
Yeah naah
womble wrote:Deadly force because of fear anxiety panic, threat of attack.
So if I’m tripping balls and jehovas witness want to come inside and talk to me i can just blow them away. Because I’m thinking holy s**t alien invasion why do they look like giant pandas
Yeah naah
Ziege wrote:Any government that does recognise and endorse and encourage people sovereignty over their own body and personal space is malicious and malevolent. Any Government that does not allow those governed by it to defend themselves without fear of reprisal is malevolent.
it really is that simple.
womble wrote:Sometimes i offer illogical fallacies also.
But case in point’ “ Efforts in Belgium show another approach, which is in effect an expansion of provocation doctrine: anyone who exceeds the bounds of proportionality because of emotion (fear, anxiety, or panic) caused by attack or threat of attack is not criminally liable.”
That’s dubious. Misreading the severity of a situation. Not acting with sound reasoning due to strong emotional reaction.
It’s a life and death decision with far reaching implications
Could even conveniently excuse a homicides.
Eg: honey you did’nt mention mother in law was dropping by tonight.
bladeracer wrote:womble wrote:Deadly force because of fear anxiety panic, threat of attack.
So if I’m tripping balls and jehovas witness want to come inside and talk to me i can just blow them away. Because I’m thinking holy s**t alien invasion why do they look like giant pandas
Yeah naah
If you're tripping what on earth are you doing owning firearms?
If anybody forces their way into your premises you have every right to keep them out.
BangWhizzClack wrote:womble wrote:Sometimes i offer illogical fallacies also.
But case in point’ “ Efforts in Belgium show another approach, which is in effect an expansion of provocation doctrine: anyone who exceeds the bounds of proportionality because of emotion (fear, anxiety, or panic) caused by attack or threat of attack is not criminally liable.”
That’s dubious. Misreading the severity of a situation. Not acting with sound reasoning due to strong emotional reaction.
It’s a life and death decision with far reaching implications
Could even conveniently excuse a homicides.
Eg: honey you did’nt mention mother in law was dropping by tonight.
Yes, it could be abused by those with ill intent, and it could possibly be a defence for those not sound of mind, but the vast majority of the population would be a whole lot safer and secure, and they would feel a lot more confident in themselves should push come to shove.
cz515 wrote:I find it ironic that we (ppl in australia) are happy to line up and get all the benefits that socialist beliefs bring. Things like universal free healthcare, education, free roads, government benefits like dole/pension. Then get on and complain how socialist laws are evil and root cause of the issues in the society.
The 2nd amendment (USA) was written in a time when population was very low, spread over a very large area and especially over frontier areas, where there was no sheriffs or police presence somtimes within days riding distance and the frontiers had to deal with maurading indians (upset at the white man stealing their land), and (white) criminals ready to steal the frontierman's belongings/animals, rape their children and women or kill them on any step. Thus i suppose also the need of a castle law.
In a modern society, with cameras, mobile phones, cars, and living in suburban houses and the ability of police to be at a crime scene (if they can be bothered to come) within minutes once notified and with very highly developed field of forensic science, there is not many justifiable reasons to have second amendment or castle type laws.
Even if a few people want these types of laws, the majority in the society see the benefit being given to them, with the (apparent) sense of security etc will not want others to enact these laws. So the choice is if you want them, maybe move to a backwards lawless country, there are a few in Africa that come to my mind.
Go and discuss
Ziege wrote:the second amendment has more to do with domestic and foreign threats to both the constitution of the USA and the Citizens it awards rights and protections to, nothing to do with sheriffs and the likes, not even remotely.
cz515 wrote:Ziege wrote:the second amendment has more to do with domestic and foreign threats to both the constitution of the USA and the Citizens it awards rights and protections to, nothing to do with sheriffs and the likes, not even remotely.
Yes while it was written in 1770s after the American colonials fought the British. But its the self defence aspect of it that was used prevalently in the 19th, 20th and the 21st century.
Whatever the reason it was intended for or is used for now..... are not relevant in this day and age. But if you actually thought about what i wrote and not just ASS-umed it might be better
cz515 wrote:Ziege wrote:the second amendment has more to do with domestic and foreign threats to both the constitution of the USA and the Citizens it awards rights and protections to, nothing to do with sheriffs and the likes, not even remotely.
Yes while it was written in 1770s after the American colonials fought the British. But its the self defence aspect of it that was used prevalently in the 19th, 20th and the 21st century.
Whatever the reason it was intended for or is used for now..... are not relevant in this day and age. But if you actually thought about what i wrote and not just ASS-umed it might be better
womble wrote:Theoretically, prevention of crime is better. A strong deterrent is better.
Unfortunately theres no long term success stories worldwide. The bad guys just don’t seem to think through the consequences.
Even with capitol punishment and civilians armed to the teeth, crime is rife. North and South America being obvious examples.
bladeracer wrote:cz515 wrote:Ziege wrote:the second amendment has more to do with domestic and foreign threats to both the constitution of the USA and the Citizens it awards rights and protections to, nothing to do with sheriffs and the likes, not even remotely.
Yes while it was written in 1770s after the American colonials fought the British. But its the self defence aspect of it that was used prevalently in the 19th, 20th and the 21st century.
Whatever the reason it was intended for or is used for now..... are not relevant in this day and age. But if you actually thought about what i wrote and not just ASS-umed it might be better
How is self-defence no longer relevant in any society?
As the left holds the criminals in ever higher esteem it becomes more and more relevant that we need to be our own first line of defence.
womble wrote:bladeracer wrote:cz515 wrote:Ziege wrote:the second amendment has more to do with domestic and foreign threats to both the constitution of the USA and the Citizens it awards rights and protections to, nothing to do with sheriffs and the likes, not even remotely.
Yes while it was written in 1770s after the American colonials fought the British. But its the self defence aspect of it that was used prevalently in the 19th, 20th and the 21st century.
Whatever the reason it was intended for or is used for now..... are not relevant in this day and age. But if you actually thought about what i wrote and not just ASS-umed it might be better
How is self-defence no longer relevant in any society?
As the left holds the criminals in ever higher esteem it becomes more and more relevant that we need to be our own first line of defence.
Finally someone does mention a flaw of the political left.
Soft on crime.