Hello Jeff.
01 Nov 17 18:16, you wrote to me:
>> But, at the time, if you had a gun with you, how could you defend
>> yourself? He had your back, with a knife stuck to your neck.
JS> If I had been carrying a handgun. Would I have used it to defend my
JS> girlfriend and/or myself? That depends on the situation. Having a gun
JS> doesn't and shouldn't mean IMHO that it should and has to be used. I
JS> look at use of a handgun as a last resort action. Would I use a
JS> handgun to retain the $45 that I had? No I would not. Would I have
JS> used a handgun to prevent the immanent death of either my girlfriend
JS> or myself? Yes I would have.
As I said before, I come from a different reality. The bad guys
south of the Equator have no value for human life... If they
notice that you have a gun, even if you don't reach for it,
they will kill you immediately.
A short Google research will show you that almost 90% of the 128
police officers killed in Rio de Janeiro (where I live) throughout
2017 were off-duty and used their own weapons to defend themselves.
>> I couldn't agree with you more. I live in Brazil, and here, to own a
>> gun, you need to undergo a Kafkianesque bureaucracy that would raise
>> a few eyebrows of communist-time Russians.
JS> There are nightmarish bureaucracies here also. It makes me wonder sometimes
JS> how the government can actually get a task actually done.
JS> But that's a topic to be discussed elsewhere.
Agreed.
>> Nevertheless, the drug dealers and all sorts of bad guys have access
>> to the state of the art on weaponry.
JS> Sadly, that is all too true. Criminals never seem to have trouble acquiring
JS> weapons of their choice. Regardless of what currently in
JS> place gun laws there may be.I am not of the mind that we should let things
JS> become a "My gun's bigger than yours" mentality.
Recently the local FBI here found out a huge stash of AR-15s
hidden into a shipment of pool filters.
JS> As you may be aware we had a recent shooting event here that killed
JS> quite a few people and injured many others. It seems that modified
JS> automatic weapons were used to comit the crime. This event aparently
JS> executed by a man with no previous criminal history. He simply used
JS> his wealth to buy and modify what weapons he thought necessary to
JS> carry out his deadly deeds.
Yes, and despite all efforts and regulations, I simply can't
think of a way to prevent that. There could be some kind of
punishment for adapting a firearm to full auto setting, but
how would you enforce such a thing? That's just crazy.
JS> We could easily exchange a number of horror stories involving mass
JS> deaths. The point as I see it is would banning gun ownership prevent
JS> such events from happening in the future?
Not a chance. As I said before, here in Brazil we have a kafkian
bureaucracy to procure and purchase weapons and even though we do
have school shootings. Much less than in the US, of course, but
they DO happen.
JS> In checking I see about 39 law enfocement officers were killed in the
JS> line of duty by gunfire in the last year nationwide.
We have reached the 120 line already just in 2017 here in Rio alone.
>> Even if I have a gun at home to protect my family, if someone breaks
>> into my house and I eventually shoot and kill the guy, I'll be in
>> deep trouble
JS> Here the legal process is usually considerably quicker. As people are
JS> able to act in self defense if necessary. And only use deadly force as
JS> a last resort.
JS> Force used in self defense that is likely to cause death or great
JS> bodily harm is justified only if a person reasonably thinks that such
JS> force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
JS> Here there is also a Stand-Your-Ground law (sometimes called "line in
JS> the sand"
JS> or "no duty to retreat" law). It is a justification in a criminal
JS> case, whereby
JS> a defendant can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating,
JS> in order
JS> to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or
JS> perceived threats.
JS> An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where
JS> they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of
JS> force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of
JS> being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or
JS> death. One case describes "the 'stand your ground' law... a person has
JS> a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be,
JS> and may use deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder.
And that's absolutely correct.
Recently a local celebrity was in a hotel to perform a photo
shooting session for some advertisement campaign and a crazy
fellow managed to break into her room and took her, her secretary
and her brother as hostages.
He held them at gunpoint, and he was complaining that she never
called him back and was really angry, typical classic fan nutjob.
He was about to shoot the celebrity in the head when her brother
tried to take his gun and they started fighting for it. At the end
her brother managed to get the handgun and shot the assailant
three times.
Guess what happened? He is being trialed for murder, because if
it would have been self-defense he would have shot only once.
JS> There is the possible position that the criminally minded people there
JS> are comfortable in the feeling that they can comit their crimes
JS> without the fear of their victums being able to effectively defend
JS> themselves.
Add to that mix a poorly managed judicial system with badly paid
police officers and you have a nightmare... One that I live into
every day.
Flavio
... "Alface: "todas as caras" em Ingl┬s" - Dkg
--- MacFidoIP 1.0 (OSX)
* Origin: Hyperion's Orbit - Resisting since 1995! (4:801/189.1)
|
