New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[FArchivist]

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

There is no right or wrong. There is legal and illegal.

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

That's a really dangerous criteria. Are you going to decide in favor of those items which hurt or help people most? How do you measure utility? Whose definition of what hurts and what helps is being used?

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.

Scenario: I'm in a bar. A man gets up from his seat, bitchslaps the woman sitting across from him, and screams he's going to kill her. Since he's made it plain he's going to kill her, I draw and plug him in the leg. He goes down. I walk over and execute him in the face.

Since I saved her life (He said he was going to kill her and I have no way of verifying that as false.), did I do right?

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

And here's where I become angry and vastly irritated/annoyed.
Because we live under rule of law. Y'know, what the Founding Fathers fought for?

When someone does things based on what they think is right or wrong, placing their own morality above the law, above what is legal or illegal, they are no different from an absolute monarch of yore, from King George to Stalin.
I execute rapists because I say it's right.
I cut the hands of of thieves because I say it's right.
I stone adulterers because I say it's right.
I execute abortion doctors because I say it's right.
When someone says "This is right/wrong.", they are actually saying "I say this is right/wrong." or "The Bible says this is right/wrong." or "Glenn Beck says this is right/wrong." We became the United States to get away from that. To have rights. To live under law.

When you place right/wrong over legal/illegal, you place right/wrong above the law. You place right/wrong over freedom of speech, over cruel and unusual punishment, over a fair trial, over the laws put in place by the legislators voted in by the populace. You place right/wrong over the Constitution, which is the Ultimate Law of the USA.

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.

And that's YOUR definition of right, which is frankly one which could be interpreted a billion different ways, depending on what is meant by "harm", "benefit", and "consent". I can think of several situations off the bat where firing 20% of the workers to maintain shareholder profit would meet what you call "right".

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

Not in the USA. Constitution Says So.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would be happy to discuss right and wrong vs legal and illegal, that is getting on a tangent from the thread, which is exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do. If you want to continue the conversation, I would be happy to do it in a separate thread.

[Andara Bledin]

We became the United States to get away from that. To have rights. To live under law.

That's actually kind of funny, considering that revolting was, by it's very nature, against the laws currently governing the people revolting.

Sometimes, the law is unacceptable. And those that are unconstitutional often must be broken, defended against, appealed against, and the cases work their way through the legal system until they reach the Supreme Court to be finally struck down.

There are times when the law must be broken.

Or, do you plan to obey all the speed limits should you find yourself in a situation where you are transporting someone to the hospital and time is of the essence?

If you spotted someone drowning in a waterway that had posted "No Swimming" signs, would you allow them to drown? Hell, there are some places where both going into the water and letting the person drown would be illegal actions. What then?

Back to the actual topic:

I'm surprised that Kennesaw, GA has only been mentioned once on Fratching at all, and that was over 2 years ago. And in a thread about gun crime in the UK. And chock full of erroneous information and a lack of useful details.

Unfortunately, nobody can seem to agree whether crime was reduced by the ordinance or not, although the city appears to currently support about half the crime rate of the national average, but even that statistic lacks relevance.

However, what is obvious is that the requirement of guns and ammunition in the homes of all but exempt citizens hasn't led to increased crime, increased accidental shootings, or other negative effects related to the high prevalence of guns.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

That's actually kind of funny, considering that revolting was, by it's very nature, against the laws currently governing the people revolting.

Except that we weren't being ruled by law then, but by the personal whim of kings. We revolted against Might Makes Right to exchange it for Rule Of Law. Parliament didn't become the Ultimate Power in the UK it later did till after his reign (and partly due to his excesses).

Sometimes, the law is unacceptable. And those that are unconstitutional often must be broken, defended against, appealed against, and the cases work their way through the legal system until they reach the Supreme Court to be finally struck down.

As we have procedures and protocols in case for taking care of laws we don't like, including electing legislators who will modify or repeal the law, then I see no need to break it.

There are times when the law must be broken.

I disagree. Practice civil disobedience if you like, but at least have the courtesy the Civil Rights activists did when they disobeyed. They served their sentences without protest.

Or, do you plan to obey all the speed limits should you find yourself in a situation where you are transporting someone to the hospital and time is of the essence?

If I have not arranged police escort at high-speed, absolutely will I follow the speed limits. If I ignore them and a crash happens, I am liable. My ass is on the line then. I will be the one sued, the one who goes to jail. And that would be "right", because whoever is liable is at fault.

If you spotted someone drowning in a waterway that had posted "No Swimming" signs, would you allow them to drown? Hell, there are some places where both going into the water and letting the person drown would be illegal actions. What then?

This has been dealt with a few times in law before. Without looking it up, as I recall, even with a Good Samaritan law in place, there are generally few jurisdictions that require duty-to-assist. Do you know what meets that requirement? Calling 911. Yes, if you spot someone drowning, calling 911 meets assistance in most jurisdictions. In all jurisdictions in the USA, failing to assist is at best a misdemeanor with a fine of $100-200.

Secondly, trespassing violations are considered suborned if a Samaritan attempt is made if the legal principle of "imminent peril" is applied. The court defines what is and is not imminent peril if suit is brought.

However, what is obvious is that the requirement of guns and ammunition in the homes of all but exempt citizens hasn't led to increased crime, increased accidental shootings, or other negative effects related to the high prevalence of guns.

As a former resident of Kennesaw, GA, I can also advise you that currently most residents are ignorant of the law, as it isn't enforced in any way, shape, or form. When you buy a house, no representative of the law checks to see that you own a firearm and ammunition for it, nor is there any penalty for not having it. But I don't really see what this has to do with what I said in my previous post; we're talking about raging vigilantes breaking the law and "doing what is right".

[Hyena Dandy]

But I don't really see what this has to do with what I said in my previous post; we're talking about raging vigilantes breaking the law and "doing what is right".

Since when?

I was referring mostly to trying to stop an active shooter scenario, not 'raging vigilantes'.

[Andara Bledin]

Except that we weren't being ruled by law then, but by the personal whim of kings.

Law is law, regardless of the origin.

As we have procedures and protocols in case for taking care of laws we don't like, including electing legislators who will modify or repeal the law, then I see no need to break it.

Some of those procedures actually include breaking the existing laws.

As a former resident of Kennesaw, GA, I can also advise you that currently most residents are ignorant of the law, as it isn't enforced in any way, shape, or form.

Not really important. The fact that every citizen can (and is supposed to) have a gun and there has not been any negative consequence worth noting is more to the point.

But I don't really see what this has to do with what I said in my previous post; we're talking about raging vigilantes breaking the law and "doing what is right".

The rest of the post was about that. The part you quoted, as denoted by my declaration that I was returning to the original topic of the thread and diverting from the tangent du jour, quite specifically returning to the original topic.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

Law is law, regardless of the origin.

In legal philosophy, that's not true. The rule of law is a legal maxim that states no person is immune to law. A traditional king not bound by anything like a Parliament or a constitution of some sort is not immune to law; they ARE the law. If a king wishes to daily rape virgins, then it is so. He can even declare it to be law. That does not mean that such a land exists under 'rule of law'.

Thus the prime difference between us and the British Empire at that time.

Not really important. The fact that every citizen can (and is supposed to) have a gun and there has not been any negative consequence worth noting is more to the point.

But this assumes correlation equals causation, which is incorrect. I would need proof/evidence that there was a correlation between the two facts.

[Andara Bledin]

But this assumes correlation equals causation, which is incorrect. I would need proof/evidence that there was a correlation between the two facts.

Bingo!

Nearly every anti-gun sentiment does precisely that. They assume that if guns are available to everybody, violent crime will skyrocket.

Then they start talking specifically about violent gun crime, which absolutely will rise with higher gun availability. But there is yet to be any evidence (causational or correlational) that overall violent crime rates rise with the availability of guns. They may not fall, either, but that's largely irrelevant. What it comes down to is that criminals will commit crimes, regardless of the availability of choice of weapon. The gun is merely a higher-level tool. If that's not available, they'll just go with the next best choice.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

But there is yet to be any evidence (causational or correlational) that overall violent crime rates rise with the availability of guns. They may not fall, either, but that's largely irrelevant.
^-.-^

I am personally of the opinion that it is highly relevant.

[Andara Bledin]

How, in any way, is that link relevant? It says nothing about the effect of a change to the legal ability to carry on violent crime rates. It doesn't even touch on it.

^-.-^