Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

AlanS181824

FISMA wrote: »

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

And America is a whole lot safer because of it right?(!)

Look on the news right now and you'll see... Shooting in America, cinema, shopping centre etc.

I think the right to carry a weapon is stupid, it really just encourages violence.

The Gardaí are far from perfect but not carrying guns is definitely a plus for Ireland as a country IMO.

BoatMad

FISMA wrote: »

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

In europe, fundamentally the people mandate the state to protect them. In Ireland as in other countries, the state has specific obligations to ensure the safety of its citizens. ( which it carries out with mixed results )

While I understand your point of view I do not believe the legal situation is much different in the USA. What is different is the attitude to self defence.

Howver one cannot seperate US history, where law enforcement often was applied to territories many years after colonies were established, hence in the states defending oneself is caught up in that history, even though today , there are more police per capita in the US then many countries.

One might speculate that without the 2nd amendment, the situation in the US, and the justifications would be similar to the European experience.

Whats clear however, is that both societies have not eradicated violence, in fact , while different statistics give different answers, its not at all clear that the US version of the process is any better in protecting its citizens.

AlanS181824

MadsL wrote: »

Self defence isn't violence IMO.

IMO violence is wrong in all forms, if you are defending yourself you are choosing to be violent, I believe that the better option would be to just get yourself out of harms way.

If that's not possible well then that is where the police system should come in I believe.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

For any hypothetical situation, or any anecdote or news story that you can give which shows a gun rescuing the helpless children, I can give or find one showing a nutter using a gun to kill the helpless children.

It proves nothing. Its hot air.

Theres at least one person out there in the US who died needlessly because landmines are restricted. Had he/she been allowed to wire the house up like a responsible registered and legally trained landmine owner the burglar boogieman wouldn't have killed them.
Ergo legalize landmines, save the public from criminals.

Now you are into the whatifery...and the absurd.

I'm giving you realistic situations, you are simply doing ridicule, it's been done to death, give it a rest.

BoatMad

AlanS181824 wrote: »

IMO violence is wrong in all forms, if you are defending yourself you are choosing to be violent, I believe that the better option would be to just get yourself out of harms way.

If that's not possible well then that is where the police system should come in I believe.

I would argue , unfortunately , there has to be a middle ground, You cannot " get out of harms way" when somebody is intent on harming you.

There are clearly situations that require you to defend yourself, and you may be required to use force upto and including lethal force.

That in reality however is not a justification for owning pre-emptive forms of lethal self defence.

AlanS181824

BoatMad wrote: »

I would argue , unfortunately , there has to be a middle ground, You cannot " get out of harms way" when somebody is intent on harming you.

There are clearly situations that require you to defend yourself, and you may be required to use force upto and including lethal force.

That in reality however is not a justification for owning pre-emptive forms of lethal self defence.

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Now you are into the whatifery...and the absurd.

I'm giving you realistic situations, you are simply doing ridicule, it's been done to death, give it a rest.

As have these hypothetical answer-questions of yours on this topic.

The truth is that someone always loses on a policy decision.

If pistols were restricted then yes the granny who couldn't handle a shotgun and was living alone and didn't have security locks and who the cops couldn't get to on time would die.

... but on the other hand the gangster who didn't have a pistol available to him couldn't calmly stroll into a shop kill the shop clerk and two customers.

But very well - no more hypotheticals. No more anecdotes.

The Diabolical Monocle

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Too obvious. You have to make it more believable.

Guy:Incognito

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

Unless they happen to be there when a murderer selects you, then all the investigation and court cases in the world won't bring you back from the dead.

AlanS181824

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Could I just ask you , AlanS181224, say for example , if a few men were going to rape you, would you just lie back and allow it?

You would not retaliate in any way, because you believe violence is wrong?

AlanS181824

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Too obvious. You have to make it more believable.

Huh?

BoatMad

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Thankfully the law in Ireland recognises my sort of middle ground. SItuations can occur that require you to act. Thats a fact of life

Your argument is a familiar one, but in reality, I don't think people " go looking for reasons to use it". Gun use in the US is a cultural thing, a function of history and custom and practice.

The fact is should you be ejected from your home by a burglar, should you abandoned your partner or children in extremis, because you must withdraw from a potential conflict. The fact is the Law in Ireland recognises that violence may be justified in certain circumstances.

I believe that is a correct interpretation. A purely non-violent approach simply flies in the face that their are violent confrontations that you may have to deal with.

none of this justifies an armed carry culture

The Diabolical Monocle

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Huh?

"I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not."

would ya stop.

if you'd like to '..... elicit an emotional response online from someone by means of expressing opinions in contradiction to theirs .....' you need to use more suggestion, tease a little, not so blatant.

its a fine art.

steddyeddy

Everyone keeps mentioning hypothetical scenario. It's the envisaging of this "siege mentality" scenarios that is resulting in all the unnecessary gun deaths in America. Everyone seems afraid of their own shadow.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Everyone keeps mentioning hypothetical scenario. It's the envisaging of this "siege mentality" scenarios that is resulting in all the unnecessary gun deaths in America. Everyone seems afraid of their own shadow.

thats a point of view, equally you could say cause everyone has a burglar alarm, that everyone is afraid of burglary, yet statically most will never be burgled. Is that the thruth , no, people simply view it as a form of insurance, IN the US the view amongst many is a gun is the same.

steddyeddy

BoatMad wrote: »

thats a point of view, equally you could say cause everyone has a burglar alarm, that everyone is afraid of burglary, yet statically most will never be burgled. Is that the thruth , no, people simply view it as a form of insurance, IN the US the view amongst many is a gun is the same.

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. The intent to protect might be the same but burglar alarms aren't causing the same problems as guns are.

Guy:Incognito

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. .

AN infant shooting A parent to death in an accidental incident cause by negligence.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. The intent to protect might be the same but burglar alarms aren't causing the same problems as guns are.

Thats a different argument, whether guns are an effective form of self defence given the issues that can arise with their proliferation. That argument is very different on each side of the atlantic.

what I was dealing with was the " fear" argument .

and know I not comparing an infant that accessed a gun being carried by a negligent person, who paid for that negligence with her life.

If the toddler had blown up their home cause she was negligent with the gas, perhaps we should ban all gas appliances.


The issue is complex

steddyeddy

Guys this argument could go around in circles because a common stream in these defenses of gun ownerships is the lack of acknowledgement that this is a problem in American society. Every thread people are being pedantic with expressions like "negligence" or "it wasn't the gun it was a person" well I hate to tell you but all of these were avoidable gun deaths. Something is wrong with this and part of the problem is people are refusing to accept it's a problem.

lightspeed

AckwelFoley wrote: »

I was in america for thanksgiving. We were at a house watching a football game


The next day a hunter missed a shot and a slug went straight through the window into the wall.

In Ireland you find said hunter and kick his face off. In America, it amounted to a strong finger wagging exercise

Did the slug survive? the auld lad pours some salt around the garden to get rid of them but suppose the Mericans do things differently.

My brother recently married a merican and emigrated to USA. Does anyone know if South Carolina has as much of a gun fetish as Florida?

I kinda just thought it was mostly Texas and the ghetto neighbourhoods that had the most gun crime or random trigger happy incidents.

Witcher

lightspeed wrote: »

Did the slug survive? the auld lad pours some salt around the garden to get rid of them but suppose the Mericans do things differently.

My brother recently married a merican and emigrated to USA. Does anyone know if South Carolina has as much of a gun fetish as Florida?

I kinda just thought it was mostly Texas and the ghetto neighbourhoods that had the most gun crime or random trigger happy incidents.

Texas actually has tougher gun laws in some ways than other states, around concealed/open carry etc. Most of the southern states will have loose gun laws. If you want somewhere with tighter laws go to NY or California.

South Carolina would be one of the more relaxed states when it comes to firearms.

MadsL

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it,

Then there are certainly numerous examples, could you point to a few?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Everyone keeps mentioning hypothetical scenario. It's the envisaging of this "siege mentality" scenarios that is resulting in all the unnecessary gun deaths in America. Everyone seems afraid of their own shadow.

Err...there is in fact no crime? Is that what you mean?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys this argument could go around in circles because a common stream in these defenses of gun ownerships is the lack of acknowledgement that this is a problem in American society. Every thread people are being pedantic with expressions like "negligence" or "it wasn't the gun it was a person" well I hate to tell you but all of these were avoidable gun deaths. Something is wrong with this and part of the problem is people are refusing to accept it's a problem.

What exactly is the problem as you see it? Perhaps you might explain how legally held firearms by law-abiding persons are a part of that problem?

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys this argument could go around in circles because a common stream in these defenses of gun ownerships is the lack of acknowledgement that this is a problem in American society. Every thread people are being pedantic with expressions like "negligence" or "it wasn't the gun it was a person" well I hate to tell you but all of these were avoidable gun deaths. Something is wrong with this and part of the problem is people are refusing to accept it's a problem.

I don't think you can rationalise the situation like that. Alcohol abuse is a serious issue in Ireland, and causes deaths each year, I see no serious attenot to completely ban alcohol. Why, well partially because culturally we accept the downsides in order to continue to have access to the alcohol.

The same is true in the US, The downsides are generally accepted in return for a cultural demand to continue to " bear arms in self defense".

You can debate it endlessly , its simply not a problem for that society ( in general )

You could apply your arguments to any activity that results in needless deaths , why do the germans allow 155mph motorways and we only allow 70mph etc.

Manic Moran

FISMA wrote: »

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

There are two errors in that post.

The first is that in Ireland you as an individual legally have a right to defend yourself. There are restrictions on the mechanisms you can use (eg, no handguns barring very fortunate circumstances), but the right to defend yourself up to and including legal force if necessary certainly exists.

The other is that it seems the Gardai, like the US police, have no obligation to you, the individual.

See M. -v- Commissioner of an Garda Siochana & Ors., High Court, 2011. Quoting the Judge:

It is in the public interest that those bodies should perform their functions without the fear or threat of action against them by individuals. <snip>
While the recognition of individualized justice may militate in favour of the recognition of a duty of care, there are compelling considerations rooted in the welfare of the whole community, which outweigh the dictates of individualized justice. This view of the law is entirely consistent with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as set out in (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 3.

The fact that the defendants are carrying out functions which are in the public interest outweighs any duty of care to private individuals.

Frankly, I can't envision -any- practical jurisdiction where the police can be held accountable for failing to protect any particular individual.

BoatMad

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are two errors in that post.

The first is that in Ireland you as an individual legally have a right to defend yourself. There are restrictions on the mechanisms you can use (eg, no handguns barring very fortunate circumstances), but the right to defend yourself up to and including legal force if necessary certainly exists.

The other is that it seems the Gardai, like the US police, have no obligation to you, the individual.

See M. -v- Commissioner of an Garda Siochana & Ors., High Court, 2011. Quoting the Judge:


Frankly, I can't envision -any- practical jurisdiction where the police can be held accountable for failing to protect any particular individual.

The situation in Ireland is that you " may" have circumstances where the use of lethal force, is required to defend yourself , primarily within your domicile. That's included any thing you can lay your hands on , including handguns.

What's not allowed in Ireland ( any many other jurisdictions) is pre-meditated lethal or potentially lethal self defence. Hence you cannot acquire any gun ( handgun or otherwise ) for the purposes of self defence, ie self defence in the future. .

You also don't have " no retreat " rights outside your home either.

The guards just like the us police are not individually responsible for your personal safety. However the state is ( as it is in the is ) . The state seeks to protect and defend its citizens to the best of its ability.

The difference is one of culture.

pmasterson95

Thought this was finished but someone with a love of executions had to try defending there bloodlust. Interestingly Murica has kids shooting up schools killing many....unusually dont see that happening as frequently in Ireland. Its obviously a good thing muricans can defend there freedom and lives isn't it, its a faultless system, imagine if every crackpot had access to a gun, good thing that doesn't happen.

BattleCorp

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.


Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

I have to pull you up on that statement above.

If I decide to rape you, or your wife, or your child, you don't think it is acceptable to fight me off because it involves violence?

Really??????:eek::eek:

BoatMad

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Thought this was finished but someone with a love of executions had to try defending there bloodlust. Interestingly Murica has kids shooting up schools killing many....unusually dont see that happening as frequently in Ireland. Its obviously a good thing muricans can defend there freedom and lives isn't it, its a faultless system, imagine if every crackpot had access to a gun, good thing that doesn't happen.

I dont think any american would contend its a faultless system. merely a different one

whisky_galore

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys this argument could go around in circles because a common stream in these defenses of gun ownerships is the lack of acknowledgement that this is a problem in American society. Every thread people are being pedantic with expressions like "negligence" or "it wasn't the gun it was a person" well I hate to tell you but all of these were avoidable gun deaths. Something is wrong with this and part of the problem is people are refusing to accept it's a problem.

It will always go round in circles, because we will always have the gun apologists. Thankfully, we have waaay stricter laws here and vetting processes that by and large mean the nut-jobs that couldn't be trusted with a cream bun don't get their hands on firearms.

I don't object to gun ownership here provided there's a valid reason for having one; like you hunt recreationally and/or belong to a gun club or use it for vermin control like many farmers do..and nothing stupid like military grade weaponry designed simply to make swiss cheese out of a target in seconds. 'Home Defense' (sic.) is not a good reason to be allowed the priviledge (not the 'right') hold a firearm legally imho.

You will always get stolen and smuggled in guns, but at least we're not doing outright silly stuff like selling them over the counter in Tescos here.

BoatMad

I don't object to gun ownership here provided there's a valid reason for having one; like you hunt recreationally and/or belong to a gun club or use it for vermin control like many farmers do..and nothing stupid like military grade weaponry designed simply to make swiss cheese out of a target in seconds. 'Home Defense' (sic.) is not a good reason to be allowed the priviledge (not the 'right') hold a firearm legally imho.

You can add target shooting as an acceptable reason too in ireland.

No form of "defense" is acceptable as a reason to hold a firearm in Ireland, full stop.

The fact is that however, any nut job with a shotgun can cause havoc, if he sets out to do so, especially in a country like Ireland, where armed response is some distance/time away. We have had a few close calls in that regard in this country.

I don't think the issue is " gun apologists", we are debating a issue that occurred in the US, and therefor it can only be debated in the context of the that societies view of the issues. It makes no sense debating it in the context of the Irish system of both laws and societal views on firearms, since it didn't happen here.