New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Vash113]

Again though, even just better enforcement of the ones you actually have would help. Also, again, you're not obligated to help anyone because you own a weapon nor are you expected in any way to do so. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that you can't use that as an argument when there's no mandate for you to do so to begin with.

Except gun control laws have not ever been proven to reduce crime, so better enforcement of them would not necessarily improve anything.

Secondly a lack of a mandate isn't important, civilian firearms ownership acts as a deterrent to crime even when they are not used, we have seen this time and time again when concealed carry laws are passed, crime generally drops. No mandate to use a firearm is necessary, some towns in the United States even have laws that require every resident to own a firearm. Far from seeing increases in crime these areas see fairly significant drops. When criminals know their victims have the capacity to fight back it is a crime deterrent even before a single shot is fired.

The argument that a lack of mandate negates defensive firearms use arguments is at best non sequitur. Civilian rights do not derive from needs and requirements. To remove a right you must prove a significant and imminent threat to the general populace from the continued existence of that right. Firearms use has not been proven to threaten the populace in general, on the contrary its generally proven to be the opposite.

I'm still curious as to the state of the US or areas of the US that cause people to feel that uneasy. As for your second point, thats actually demonstrable false by other countries with stricter controls than the US. In Canada for example, when we outlawed handguns, crime with handguns dropped like a rock. Over the last 40 years or so since we began really tightening our gun control laws the usage of firearms in crime has dropped significantly. Murder with firearms for example, has dropped literally by half. Yes, we still have murder. As bad people will do bad things regardless. That however, is a different argument. But they will do it with what's available. If guns aren't available, they aren't used. So no, that cliche by itself isn't true.

That is actually not at all true. In Washington D.C. for instance when the gun bans were passed into law gun crimes went up dramatically. When victims could no longer protect themselves properly they became defenseless. Much the same has occurred in other areas of the United States. All major shooting sprees have happened on "gun free" zones where available. Where as places like Japan that have very strict gun control laws simply have a ton of stabbings. Banning a weapon does not stop violent crime, not even remotely. Crime in the UK has not improved significantly thanks to gun bans either, actually if I recall correctly gun crime is up in the last ten years in the UK.

Actually looking at statistics from the United Nations from public and justice system sources homicides and assaults went up fairly consistently in Canada over the last surveyed period from 2003-2008. In the United States those crime rates were wobbly but generally down over that same period. Maybe firearms crimes are down in Canada but crime in general is up, if you solve one problem but make another worse that still isn't a good thing, especially if it is at the cost of trampling over civil liberties.

As for feeling uneasy, many people do and its because violent crimes can happen just about anywhere. Not everyone lives in upper-middle class neighborhoods that are virtually crime free and even then horrible violent crimes still occur. The DC shooting spree was not so long ago to easily forget and sent the entire tri-state region into paroxysms of terror. The Holocaust museum saw a shooting recently and a few years back someone opened fire at the White House. Not to mention the Fort Hood shooting. That disturbed a lot of people, if an Army Base isn't safe from mentally unstable killers, what is?

Not to mention many people live in less secure sub-urban and rural areas where cops are a long way away even when they are called and the fear isn't always of human attackers. Many people in rural areas have to worry about wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, mountain lions and so on and so forth. Try carrying around a hunting rifle everywhere you go sometime, it's a lot easier to carry a Smith & Wessen 500, which is about the only handgun that will stop a bear... sometimes. Whereas people in urban areas have gang violence, robbery, burglary, assault and many other crimes to worry about.

While only about 1.4% of the population will suffer a violent crime each year, odds are about 85% or more will be victims of a violent crime at sometime in their life. While some throw around claims of paranoia I honestly don't see gun ownership as anything other than reasonable prudence.

Again though, its easy because its available, if its not available its not easy. It goes hand in hand.

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market. On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

Have you no taste, man? >.>

Well true Call of Duty has gone into some rather irksome conspiracy theory heavy plots they're still some extremely addictive games, besides you'd prefer World of Warcraft? That game devours your soul!

Er, no. Running to your car to get a weapon to stop an active shooter that's on a rampage isn't vengeance. Driving all the way home, getting your gun, coming back and shooting him in the head while the cops are taking him away is vengeance. >.>

Well said.

[Ninja_Sushi]

Which bring up something I just thought about...One marked as a felon in the US, rights are taken away, such asssssss: Right to bear arms.

Unfortunately I do have a couple felon friends and yes, they have obtained firearms from shady people. I dont know how I feel about this cause they both have changed their lifestyles and arent doing the gang thing anymore. Yes its not legal for them to have one, but it does make me feel better knowing they can protect themselves (their neighborhood is very....hood).

My point was even though they were told they could not own a firearm, they were still able to get one. Hell, I can walk outside right now and buy a full auto AK-47(very illegal) for $350. All you need is connections. Not saying I would actually buy anything illegal or affiliate myself with gang members, I just have my ways. Its very easy nowdays.

Its just like the drug trade, we have tens of thousand of troops/agents along the border but still manage to have drugs up here. If people demand there will ALWAYS be a supplier. Laws wont stop them. Nor will restrictions. Once one becomes cynical to the world, nothing suprises you.

Which is why I will keep my weapon no matter what. Even if a law is in place. If its taken, Ill buy a dirty gun. Im never going to be caught dead without my plan B when its needed.

[Mikkel]

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market. On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

It's very difficult to buy black market firearms here and even more difficult to buy ammunition for them. Both are impossible to buy legally without a permit.
I could get some kind of handgun in a month or two, I think, through one of my shadier friends. They are smuggled in, primarily from Eastern Europe and Russia. Ammo, though, I doubt I could get much and certainly not cheap.
Robbers here usually make do with knifes or baseball bats.

[Gravekeeper]

Except gun control laws have not ever been proven to reduce crime, so better enforcement of them would not necessarily improve anything.

They reduce crime committed with guns due simple to availability. I was responding specifically to the cliche. Also, better enforcement of existing laws would have stopped the Arizona shooting, for the most blatant example. Better enforcement would also not make anything worse. Really, why not have better enforcement of existing laws? What would be the problem with that? -.-

Secondly a lack of a mandate isn't important, civilian firearms ownership acts as a deterrent to crime even when they are not used, we have seen this time and time again when concealed carry laws are passed, crime generally drops.

Time and time again where? You can't conceal carry at all in Canada. Anywhere. For any reason. Our crime rates are going down regardless. Our crime rates are lower than yours to begin with. Our crime rates with fire arms are obviously lower.

No mandate to use a firearm is necessary, some towns in the United States even have laws that require every resident to own a firearm. Far from seeing increases in crime these areas see fairly significant drops. When criminals know their victims have the capacity to fight back it is a crime deterrent even before a single shot is fired.

....wait, what? Where the hell is that mandated? You mean to tell me there's somewhere they mandate owning lethal force, yet people freak the fuck out about rights when it comes to health insurance? And yeah it would deter me, as in period. I wouldn't go anywhere near such a place. I don't mean that as a criminal either.

The argument that a lack of mandate negates defensive firearms use arguments is at best non sequitur.

I didn't say it negated defensive firearm use. Please pay attention to what Ninja said, and what I was responding too.

That is actually not at all true.

It's completely true. I didn't pull the stats out of my ass. >.>

In Washington D.C. for instance when the gun bans were passed into law gun crimes went up dramatically.

That's not surprising, you're comparing banning them in one city vs Canada where they're banned in the entire country. Those are two completely different ballgames and not comparable. I'm not suprised at all it failed miserably.

Where as places like Japan that have very strict gun control laws simply have a ton of stabbings.

Again, bad people will do bad things. Again, as I said, that's an entirely different argument.

Banning a weapon does not stop violent crime, not even remotely. Crime in the UK has not improved significantly thanks to gun bans either, actually if I recall correctly gun crime is up in the last ten years in the UK.

Violent crime is tallied differently in the UK. They have 24/7 pub hours and even a pushing match between two drunks is technically counted as a violent crime. They also still have one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the entire world. Well below Canada. Which, again, is only about 1/6th of the US's firearm homicide rate per capita. For straight up non-homicide gun crime, they're not much better than Canada. But they're still 1/5th of the US.

There is a clear link between availability and usage in crime, simple as that. The underlaying reasons may very and the solutions may not be clear ( Like I said a few times already, I'm not trying to take all your guns away and toss them in the fires of Mount Doom. ) But that alone is undeniable, sorry.

Actually looking at statistics from the United Nations from public and justice system sources homicides and assaults went up fairly consistently in Canada over the last surveyed period from 2003-2008. In the United States those crime rates were wobbly but generally down over that same period. Maybe firearms crimes are down in Canada but crime in general is up, if you solve one problem but make another worse that still isn't a good thing, especially if it is at the cost of trampling over civil liberties.

First of all, correlation /= causation. Second of all, crime has overall been falling in Canada for over a decade now per StatCan. Third, yes, individual crimes here may fluctuate a little from year to year, but we're literally talking a + or - of 10-15 homicides. With actual firearm homicides, they dropped heavily right after we put tougher controls in place in the 1970s. They then leveled off by 2000, stabilized for a while and are again trending downwards since 2005. Fourth of all, I'm not sure how its tallied elsewhere, but in Canada manslaughter is included in our homicide rate. Fifth of all, straight up homicide rates are trending downward in all western countries. Yours included. But, you still have one of the highest of any industrialized nation. Especially with firearms.

Aside from availability and thus usage, I don't think guns have a factor on the actual rate of crime one way or another. Me thinks niether having them nor not having them really affects the overall rate of crime. Only the rate at which they're used in crime.

To quote StatCan: Most violent crime (75%) was committed by physical force or threats, without the use of any weapon. Weapons were used against 18% of victims of violent crimes, with knives (6.2%) and clubs or blunt instruments (3.0%) being the most common. A firearm was used against 2.4% of all victims.

Up here, we're probably going to pull your jersey over your head and punch you more than anything else. >.>

As for feeling uneasy, many people do and its because violent crimes can happen just about anywhere. Not everyone lives in upper-middle class neighborhoods that are virtually crime free and even then horrible violent crimes still occur.

Again, this is what I'm interested in, in the US. Is the how or why of these areas where you actually feel you need to carry a firearm. But no one's really answered that one yet.

Not to mention many people live in less secure sub-urban and rural areas where cops are a long way away even when they are called and the fear isn't always of human attackers. Many people in rural areas have to worry about wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, mountain lions and so on and so forth.

Most gun owners in Canada are rural and have them for precisely the reasons you list. IE They have a legit reason.

Try carrying around a hunting rifle everywhere you go sometime, it's a lot easier to carry a Smith & Wessen 500, which is about the only handgun that will stop a bear... sometimes. Whereas people in urban areas have gang violence, robbery, burglary, assault and many other crimes to worry about.

Our urban areas are very anti-gun. Generally speaking only the most hardcore ( gang related ) commonly have them ( Though its typically foreign groups, locals still like their knives ), and up here at least they tend to be too busy using them on each other well away from the rest of us. Like I said before, I live in the worst city in Canada for gun related crimes. The worst. And I would still have to put in months of effort pissing off Asian gangs to get shot. >.>

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market.

Cept they do. Again, there is a clear link between availability and usage. We can argue the social and economic reasons for why crime happens as I imagine thats the biggest problem in the US. But that one point is stands by looking at any other country with tighter controls than the US.

On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

Yet again, Canada. I'm not under siege here thanks to gun control laws. Even despite sharing the longest undefended border in the world with the US.

I feel the need to yet again point out I don't want to take away all your guns, Mt Doom, etc. I think you could seriously do with better enforcement of existing laws and less of this states rights stuff that lets it fluctuate so much from place to place. But I don't want to take away all your guns and leave you at the peril of whatever the hell it is down there that you live in the same neighbourhood with. >.>

Well true Call of Duty has gone into some rather irksome conspiracy theory heavy plots they're still some extremely addictive games, besides you'd prefer World of Warcraft? That game devours your soul!

Pssh! At least play something in the Battlefield series. -.-

Which bring up something I just thought about...One marked as a felon in the US, rights are taken away, such asssssss: Right to bear arms.

Unfortunately I do have a couple felon friends and yes, they have obtained firearms from shady people. I dont know how I feel about this cause they both have changed their lifestyles and arent doing the gang thing anymore. Yes its not legal for them to have one, but it does make me feel better knowing they can protect themselves (their neighborhood is very....hood).<snip>

Again though, that hops back to "better enforcement of existing laws" as well as "Dear lord what sort of neighbourhood is this?" >.>

[Ninja_Sushi]

Well Gravekeeper....

To put it simply, you have to be there to understand. There are some parts of the city that just aren't that safe at night. For example, South side and East side Tucson. South side: Very dangerous, low income house holds, cheap apartments, lots of gangs, liquor stores, bars on windows, graffiti, etc.

Unfortunately, if you work a standard minimum wage job, more than likely you live around there. I mean dont get me wrong, during the day its fine. And the apartments are set at a good price. Lots of stores to go to. But at night, it does a 180. Its one of those places where your 'sixth sense' would be ringing bad. NO ONE walks at night. If you do, I guarantee you will be either mugged, raped, or killed. Especially if you are white, asian, or black. That side of town is overrun with Sur trece (South 13...13 being the letter 'M' for Mexican). East side almost the same, a little safer. You can walk but only in lit areas. Even then I dont recommend it. Blood and Crip area. Again, if you're white, mexican, or asian.

Its just....better if you have a gun. Say there was a strict gun law. Ok, nobody has a gun. Ill have a knife. Against 5 guys with knives, clubs, etc. I lose. At least with a gun I can have a chance. Not every gangbanger has a gun, thank god. Ill fight long range against 5 guys with guns and risk not getting shot due to inaccuracy than risk close quarters with a knife.

Sometimes its just better to have something rather than nothing at all. It rather go down shooting and taking out 2 or 3 of them than having 5 guys stab me to death. .......(Smoke time!!!!)

[Ninja_Sushi]

Oh and average response time is 15min (quickest) to 90min (slowest....yes even for burglaries) Scary huh? lol, and they lay off the Sheriff's Dept and Tucson PD....Pshhhh, thats what we need. Even less cops. WHERE IS MY TAX MONEY GOING?? Or the better question: What's my tax money being spent on? Politicians? I think so. Lame tourist attractions? Indeed. Construction on perfectly fine roads? Yes. Give money to the police departments you say? HAHAHA! I need my new jacuzzi with the pop up mini bar!

[Gravekeeper]

But at night, it does a 180. Its one of those places where your 'sixth sense' would be ringing bad. NO ONE walks at night. If you do, I guarantee you will be either mugged, raped, or killed. Especially if you are white, asian, or black. That side of town is overrun with Sur trece (South 13...13 being the letter 'M' for Mexican). East side almost the same, a little safer. You can walk but only in lit areas. Even then I dont recommend it. Blood and Crip area. Again, if you're white, mexican, or asian.

Yes, there we go. That's what I was wondering about. You don't get that here, which is likely why its hard for me to understand the gun issue down there. I can walk to 7/11 at 3am down what is supposedly the worst street in our neighbourhood and the absolute worst I have to fear is some dude asking me for change. Can and have.

Downtown here, my office is smack in the middle of downtown. We can wander out on our break to the store or Subway or something at 3 or 4 in the morning and have nothing to fear. ( Cept change dude. )

Oh and average response time is 15min (quickest) to 90min (slowest....yes even for burglaries)

See if that's the kind of enviroment around there, I don't have a problem at all with you having a gun, frankly. *I'd* probably have one. -.-

[crashhelmet]

All of which is great when it's adhered to and when said training is studiously kept with. Problem being that neither is necessarily true.
The onus of continuing with said training and maintaining a good level of proficiency is still on the individual. Together with the inevitable cases of bad apples falling through the cracks and formal training requirements or not is far from the golden bullet that some people hold it to be.

Put that together with the varying hard and fast requirements between jurisdictions and unscrupulous businesses and getting payed is no guarantee at all.

At the end of the day while in general a security guard is better than John Doe and a beat cop is better than a security guard etc. the assumption that John Doe doesn't have training is false because many do to say nothing of the falsity of the assumption that no training is a catastrophe. There are enough instances of entirely untrained people doing exactly the right thing to show that the possibility that some or even most of a given group may lack formal training is not enough to discount or disband that group. In this case, civilian CCP holders.

These certifications aren't handed out like Arizona Driver's Licenses where they're good for far too many years than they should be. You have to renew them annually. Some companies, for insurance purposes, make their guards take proficiency tests every 6 months, depending on their job levels.

Now, I realize I may be making an assumption here based on my own personal experience, but I would think that security guards that are certified to carry a firearm are going to be people that actually own one and spend their own recreational time at a range, in addition to whatever classes they need, or even want, to take. So once again, they will not only have the experience that you attest people with CCPs will have, but they will also have the training that comes with it.

Nowhere in that quote did I state that CCers were superhuman or themselves better than cops overall, merely that many CCers are also hobbyist shooters who benefit from higher resulting proficiency levels than those LEOs who practice only as much as they are required to.

Your very first line in that quote says otherwise

Again, a CC practitioner and a police officer are roughly equivalent over all and many if not most CC practitioners far exceed average LE levels of firearms proficiency and accuracy.

Do you honestly believe that once a cop finished through the academy and gets hired, they never have any type of training again?

You're the one insinuating that anyone who carries a concealed weapon who then engages an active shooter = cowboy.

No, I'm not. I'm saying any ordinary civilian that engages an active shooter, regardless if they're open or concealed carry, is one. You're the one that keeps making people with CCPs out to be on a higher skill level than someone without, as well as higher than the police.

Are you saying that if some deranged ass-hat opened fire in the mall you were in and you were armed at that time that you wouldn't take action?
If the answer is "no I wouldn't take action" than clarification will be achieved and we can move on.
If the answer is "Yes I would take action" than it is therefore quite hypocritical for you to accuse others of being vigilantees and therefore bad people whilst doing the same thing in preparation for the same course of action in the same circumstance as you.

My first priority would be the safety of myself and that of the people around me. I would not go looking for the gunman and abandon those people. If he came to us and began firing, I would shoot back knowing full well what legal risks I was taking. In all honesty, I'd shoot for the legs or the shoulder. I'd incapacitate him before I'd kill him. Hell, even if I wasn't armed I would do what I could to save a life. I can handle a jail cell better than personal guilt.

Problem being that your clients have the money to hire and vet professionals, the people who have to worry about stray shots from gang-bangers do not. They also deserve some protection and the only way they're going to get it is doing it for themselves. Open carry would be fine if it weren't for the loss of the element of surprise to say nothing of the fact that open carry tends to freak people out. It's far better to conceal for the purpose of day-to-day carry, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

Much like what GK and Ninja is talking about, that's where things need to change. There needs to be better law enforcement in those areas. Redo the state and city budgets to employ more police and have regular patrols to reduce that crime. Why would Conceal Carry be better? Wouldn't having everyone Open Carry make would be criminals think twice about committing a crime since they can see that people are armed? Are you saying it's better for them to fall for a ruse and possibly cost the lives of innocents, rather than not commit the crime at all?

How?
This is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen.
Leaving to get the right tool means only that you wanted to get the right tool. The shooter didn't go home while these people were gone, he didn't finish his crime and then get caught by an angry mob after the fact.
As long as that threat is active any and all action to end that threat is exactly that, it's only when force is used after the threat has ended that it becomes vengeance. These people didn't pop this guy on his way to court, they didn't bludgeon him to death in his bed. They recognized an ongoing threat to the life and limb of everyone in the area and prepared themselves to stop it.

No. You're missing the point, so I'll put it plainly. Once you leave the scene, you are no longer in any threat. You no longer have any need to defend yourself. it is no longer "Self-Defense." If you leave and come back, it becomes vengeance and quite possibly retribution.

Because his actions were not in self-defense. The reason he was convicted was because he used lethal force in an instance where there was no threat to life or limb and certainly no lethal force or threat thereof against him.

This man's case in no way applies to instances where people use lethal force against violent robbery attempts, active shooters, rape attempts or those instances covered by any Castle Doctrine.

His defense was that he was attacked and needed to defend himself. That sounds like Self-Defense to me. What about Bernard Goetz? Multiple eye witnesses called him a hero and said he was right to defend himself. While he might have been acquitted, he was still arrested and charged with his crimes. But that comes down to the jury seeing it as justified, not what the laws state.

Even so, it means nothing as throughout the whole process for those who did indeed leave and then return, the shooter was still an active threat. I can find no law that makes it illegal to assist police, only cases where those who did had to fend for themselves in the face of civil suits, which is far from the end of the world and has nothing to do with legality.

Criminal vs civil law is a debate left for another thread. I don't see the logic in someone like OJ Simpson or Bernard Goetz being acquitted in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court. It looks like double-jeopardy to me.

There are several laws that can be applied. Some I've already listed, like use of excessive force, discharging a firearm in public, having a firearm within 100 yards of a school, and there is also interference with public duties. After they're applied, it's up to the legal system and the rights of due process. if the courts find them Not Guilty, then they're not guilty. The fact remains, that they're arrested because they're breaking laws.

How about this. Go out and buy yourself a police scanner and listen to it. When you hear about a robbery or anything involving gun fire, go down and involve yourself in it. See just how quickly you get yourself a brand new pair of shiny bracelets.

[Hyena Dandy]

But that comes down to the jury seeing it as justified, not what the laws state.

So, what is the ultimate decider of what is right then? The law? Juries?

I say the ultimate decider of what is right is whether it hurts or helps people.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, even though you haven't replied to it.

IF you help people. IF you save lives. IF you stop a crime, and you are found guilty of vigilantism or any other of the crimes you've listed then the laws are wrong, and what you did is right.

How about this. Go out and buy yourself a police scanner and listen to it. When you hear about a robbery or anything involving gun fire, go down and involve yourself in it. See just how quickly you get yourself a brand new pair of shiny bracelets.

But that is in no way related to what they're talking about. I can see how you might THINK it is, but it isn't. They're talking about being in a situation, and trying to make it better. Not LOOKING for trouble to be a hero.

You're just ignoring the other side, and making up claims for your opponents to argue against instead.

[crashhelmet]

So, what is the ultimate decider of what is right then? The law? Juries?

I say the ultimate decider of what is right is whether it hurts or helps people.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, even though you haven't replied to it.

IF you help people. IF you save lives. IF you stop a crime, and you are found guilty of vigilantism or any other of the crimes you've listed then the laws are wrong, and what you did is right.

It's the basis of our legal system. Our LEOs make arrests based on whether or not laws are broken. Judges and Juries decide if you broke them and if you were justified in breaking them. It's a flawed system.

And I have replied to it. I have said before that it doesn't matter if it's viewed as being right or not, it's still illegal.

But that is in no way related to what they're talking about. I can see how you might THINK it is, but it isn't. They're talking about being in a situation, and trying to make it better. Not LOOKING for trouble to be a hero.

You're just ignoring the other side, and making up claims for your opponents to argue against instead.

How is it not different from leaving the scene of a crime, taking yourself out of the scenario, thus making yourself completely safe and out of harm's way, grabbing your gun, and returning to the scene of the crime? How is that different than sitting at home, grabbing your gun, and joining in and 'assisting" the police at a shooting scene?

[Hyena Dandy]

And I have replied to it. I have said before that it doesn't matter if it's viewed as being right or not, it's still illegal.

Then go to jail for it. That doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't have done it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Why should I place what is legal or illegal above what is right or wrong?

[crashhelmet]

Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Why should I place what is legal or illegal above what is right or wrong?

Right and wrong is a matter of personal morals. What may be right or wrong to you isn't always what is right or wrong to someone else.

People that bomb abortion clinics or kill the doctors that perform them believe they're in the right, despite the lives they take or laws they break. They're lauded as heroes by those of the same mindset.

Some people believe they have the right to steal because they're under-privileged, especially if it's from someone that is wealthy.

Some people believe they're right by not paying taxes or committing tax fraud.

How do you define right or wrong?

[Hyena Dandy]

Right and wrong is a matter of personal morals. What may be right or wrong to you isn't always what is right or wrong to someone else.

People that bomb abortion clinics or kill the doctors that perform them believe they're in the right, despite the lives they take or laws they break. They're lauded as heroes by those of the same mindset.

Some people believe they have the right to steal because they're under-privileged, especially if it's from someone that is wealthy.

Some people believe they're right by not paying taxes or committing tax fraud.

How do you define right or wrong?

For the sake of the discussion, because you seem to have skipped my bringing this up before, I'll try to lay it out clearly.

A right action is one that

Causes no harm to anyone else, and causes benefit to others, or causes harm only by the consent of those being harmed.

If neither of those are possible

A right action is one which stops a party from causing harm to people other than themselves.

That said, that being said, and having said that, the question of what I believe is right or wrong is an irrelevant tangent. The actions you have listed are wrong, independent of their legality. Were stealing, abortion-clinic bombing, or tax fraud, not illegal, I would still say they were wrong.


The point I am trying to make, which will be highlighted, underlined, and even centerednot out of condescension but in order to ensure that it is properly emphasized that this is the matter at hand, and this is, for lack of a better word, thesis.

You need to provide a reason these actions are wrong other than that they are illegal.

[Andara Bledin]

How do you define right or wrong?

Let's keep it simple, then.

If an action causes harm to another without provocation, it's Wrong.

If an action prevents harm to someone undeserving of harm, then it's Right.

Given those criteria and with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

Especially, as you said, juries have the right to acquit based on justification. (knowledge of which will usually guarantee you never get on a jury)

^-.-^