Skip to main content

I was very happy with the response to the first "What CAN we agree on?" diary.  For the most part, the conversation and comments were highly respectful to both sides of the gun debate, and I applaud the efforts of everyone on that count.

So, since we can talk about this with civility, I'd like to continue this train of thought, with some more bare bones, bargain basement, nobody should have a disagreement, thoughts.

I'd like to start with one that there were no major complaints regarding, and delve a little deeper into exactly what we do agree on.

What is a legitimate use of a gun, and what is not.

(Bare-bones assumptions on the flip)

I am not going to get to heavily into grey areas here.  This is specifically about bare bones, we all can agree on this, stuff.

If we can establish a base, we can at least talk with some shared assumptions.  Shared assumptions will help us all in the long run, IMHO, since we will no longer be arguing about terms and instead can concentrate on the real issue, which is of course what we can all do to prevent as many gun deaths as possible.

So, I'm going to provide 10 uses of guns.  5 that everyone can agree are fine and dandy, and 5 that probably are pretty obviously wrong.

1.  Hunting.  

We can all agree on this.  Hunting is already regulated, calibers, types of bullets, animals killed, etc.  I think we can all agree that hunting for food is a legitimate hobby.  While some of us might disagree at the morality of hunting in toto, we can agree that it is a legitimate use of a firearm.  

2. Target shooting.  

Once again, pretty cut and dried.  I don't think that anybody is going to disagree that folks who enjoy shooting sports should have their hobby completely curtailed.  It's a legitimate use of firearms, and one that  has a long history and tradition in the US.

3.  Protection against animals in the wild.

Fairly simple one, but needs to be addressed.  If you live in a rural area, I think that it's pretty much established that your gun is a tool which you need.  There are mountain lions, there are wild animals, etc.  We can argue all we want about human encroachment, etc, but right now, as things stand, I believe this is a legitimate use.

4.  Self-defense against an armed intruder in your home.

Once again, this one is pretty straight forward, but I think that it's worth pointing out.  If someone breaks into your home, I think you should have the right to defend yourself.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone in such a black and white situation having a weapon to defend themselves.  Any further discussion gets into those grey areas that we argue about, but I think we can state that THIS specific scenario is a legitimate use of a gun.

5.  Gun collecting for historical purposes.

Not my hobby.  But I understand that there are quite a few folks who want to own a weapon for this exact reason.  I do not see anything wrong with this type of collecting.  Granted, I might want more restrictions on it than a person who practices the hobby, but I can at least agree that this is a legitimate use of a gun.

And now we get into the illegitimate uses of a gun.  Now once again, these are pretty blatantly obviously wrong.  I'm doing that because I want to build consensus.  If we can agree on black and white, we can at least begin to discuss the various shades of grey.

1.  Premeditated Murder.

Fairly obvious, I would think.  But this is not a legitimate use of a gun.  Planning to kill someone, getting the gun, and shooting another human being with malice aforethought is flat out wrong.  It is not a grey area, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that one.

2.  Shooting the neighbors pet because you want to.

Again, pretty fricking obvious, right? However, it's not a legitimate use of a gun.  

3.  Rampaging through a Crowd, shooting as many people as possible.

I'm surprised that this one is even on the list, honestly, but I think we should put it here.  It's not a thing that a responsible gun owner even considers, and yet it happens.  I think we can all agree that this is not something we condone.

4.  Obviously threatening or intimidating someone with a gun

I'm not talking about the "self-defense" legitimate use that we already discussed, or pulling a gun to dissuade an attacker.  I'm talking about the guy who wants to intimidate someone or get his way, and so pulls out his gun and levels it at the person's head.  I think we can agree that this is not a use that we condone or support.  Once again, a VERY narrow point.  

5.  Randomly shooting weapons into the air to celebrate.

I don't get this one, and it's damned dangerous.  I think we can agree that randomly spraying fire into the air is not in anyone's best interest.  

So there we are.  These are EXTREMELY black and white, I am aware.  However, once again, this has to do with establishing a baseline, not a final end all and be all solution.

These uses are simply uses that we agree are legitimate and illegitimate uses of a gun.   If we can agree on this, we can move on to talking about other things, as well as trying to really reach some kind of consensus as to what needs to be done.

Here's hoping again.  Last time was pretty good, and I'd like to keep it that way, so please, no invective, pejorative, or changing the subject.  

Originally posted to detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  easy peasy (9+ / 0-)

    illegitimate use = illegal use

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:42:17 AM PST

    •  So, I take it that you agree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JaxDem, Smoh, glorificus

      With the listed uses.

      I'm very glad to hear that we can at least reach a consensus on the absolute black and white category of this.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:46:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  to be "legitimate" is primarily to be legal (5+ / 0-)

        the subjective interpretation meaning of the word cannot be applied to legal analysis.  or at least, the legal question trumps the living daylights out of the societal norms considerations.

        1
        a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock
        b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth < a legitimate child>
        2
        : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false < a legitimate grievance> < a legitimate practitioner>
        3
        a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements < a legitimate government>
        b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right < a legitimate king>
        4
        : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards < a legitimate advertising expenditure> < a legitimate inference>
        5
        : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy
        so again, the only "illegitimate" use of a gun is an illegal one.

        peace

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:20:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we're getting a little bogged down (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, cotterperson, Smoh, glorificus

          in needless semantics here.

          The question was whether or not we can agree on these 10 examples.

          I'm under the impression that you agree.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:22:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what i'm saying is that (6+ / 0-)

            compiling a list of specific "legitimate" uses is a pointless exercise.

            any legal use of a gun is legitimate.  any illegal one is not.  no details/specifics required; it really is that simple.

            this is NOT getting bogged down in needless semantics; words mean things.  and there are only two definitions of "legitimate" which pertain to this subject:  one about the legal status and one about societal norms.

            full-on legal trumps societal norms.  every time.

            peace

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:28:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cotterperson, Smoh, glorificus, trumpeter

              Right now, I'm under the impression that we're trying to reach a consensus about what needs to be done.

              If we're only going to talk about legality, we're already getting mired in the infighting that prevents progress on this issue.

              I do not consider this exercise pointless, seeing as it has created some extremely civil dialogue already.

              I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

              by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:48:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  but that's the thing (5+ / 0-)

                beyond legal/illegal, "legitimate" is a very subjective term, i.e. largely opinion.

                law > opinion

                Right now, I'm under the impression that we're trying to reach a consensus about what needs to be done.
                absolutely.  "what needs to be done" refers specifically to legislation, i.e., laws.  and what needs to be done is to prevent illegal uses of guns.  so why bother defining what "legitimate" uses are?  

                the problem is the illegal usage; that is what needs to be clearly defined in order to determine the best way (laws) forward.  what law-abiding gun owners do couldn't matter less; they are not the problem.  

                imHo, the primary consideration on how to move forward is what would be the most effective, which is a function of both actually mitigating (gun) violence and being able to get out of congress.

                the most immediate and direct effects would come from repealing the tiahrt amendment and allowing BATF to actually do its job.  they haven't had a full-time director in years.  cracking down on crooked FFLs would go a long way to keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

                apparently, obama can take action to expand mental health services via executive order.  that would be an immediate and direct effect.

                but predicating the path to "gun control" on subjectively defining what is legitimate use is not standing on solid ground.

                identify the criminal uses and set about preventing those.  why ponder the inner workings of the carburetor when it's the spark plugs that are blinkered, yannow?

                peace

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:21:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The steps you outline are good. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Smoh, glorificus

                  But are rather specific, and respectfully, outside the stated purpose of this diary, which is to come to a baseline agreement.

                  I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not this diary is a fruitless exercise.

                  I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                  by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:25:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the diary is not fruitless (4+ / 0-)

                    defining the problem uses is essential to fixing the problem.  defining legitimate uses is not.

                    peace

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:30:37 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I see. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Smoh, glorificus

                      So you consider that only the negative implications need to be addressed.  (Correct me if I'm wrong)

                      I honestly don't think that's a good point to start the discussion.  There are uses for guns, and by not talking about the uses that we consider legitimate, we are placing excessive negativity on the weapon.

                      In essence, had I only talked about the negative aspects of weapons, I feel that this diary would not have been balanced and would have only served to heighten tensions between the pro gun and anti gun crowds.

                      As it is, I'm quite flattered to see prominent members of both sides reccing the diary, and the discussion remaining far more civil than our discourse in the past few months.

                      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:35:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  in a nutshell, yeah. that's what i'm saying (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose, PavePusher, gerrilea

                        what gun owners who do not break any laws do with their guns do could not matter less in this debate.  and we can't afford to alienate allies in this.

                        the problem is the illegal uses; define those and what gives rise to them and seek to remedy those situations.   ending the drug war, repealing tiahrt etc. why go through the hassle of reverse-engineering -- what working off of consensus on legitimate use basically is -- when it's much more straightforward to focus legislation on preventing illegal usage?

                        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                        by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:44:49 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ignore that third "do" hahaha n/t (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                          by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:45:25 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Because of poisoned wells. (2+ / 0-)

                          We're looking at a great deal of propaganda which has been tossed about and assumptions which are made by one side or the other, which effectively have shut down the discourse.

                          By starting at the bottom, we eliminate much of that baggage, instead concentrating on where we agree and what we can do to work forward.

                          I understand your concerns, but the groundwork is not truly laid for this.

                          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                          by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:50:43 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  and all i'm saying (4+ / 0-)

                            is that the only groundwork that need be laid is identifying the pressure points of preventing illegal usage.  so we look at laws to strengthen enforcement agencies, repeal tiahrt, and other means of keeping guns out of criminals' hands.    

                            leave law-abiding gun owners alone and you'll have lots of allies.  set about trying to define what is legitimate (or not) for others and you will not.

                            peace.

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:09:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And once again, we're back to where we disagree. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Cedwyn, glorificus

                            I'm hearing you, and I understand you point.  I'm also not trying to define for others.  I'm trying to come to an agreement with the others.

                            It's a fine difference, I admit, but it's the difference between a discussion and a proclamation.  

                            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                            by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:11:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Perhaps this might help ... (3+ / 0-)

                        The "legitimate" uses listed above are legal and should remain legal.  

                        It's possible that there are legal uses of a gun that perhaps shouldn't be legal.   What are they, and can we discuss if they should remain legal?

                        The "illegitimate" uses listed above are illegal and should remain illegal.

                        It's possible there are currently illegal uses of a gun that perhaps shouldn't be illegal.  What are there, and can we discuss if they should remain illegal?

                        I hope this is helpful.

                        •  An excellent topic! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Joy of Fishes, glorificus

                          Thank you for adding to the discussion.

                          discussion of specific laws is a great discussion to have, and merely define legitimacy by legality is severely limiting the potential discussion.

                          However, that's a different diary, IMHO.

                          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                          by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:52:23 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Definitely not fruitless. (4+ / 0-)

                    Perhaps the only way we will be able to meet on common ground to have meaningful discussion.  Thank you.

                    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                    by Smoh on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:46:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I gave this diary a T& R for several reasons, but (6+ / 0-)

        your willingness to attempt a foundation on which we can all agree is the biggest one.

        You've demonstrated to me that you at least are trying to work on this hot-button issue in good faith within this series, and I think that's worth rewarding.

        I think your lists are a good starting point.

        I think random gunfire already does have several prohibitions against it in various state (don't know the US Code on this point) -- but I'd add that "celebration" isn't the only reason some people indulge in random gunfire, and just because it's not a celebration doesn't mean it's a legitimate use of a firearm.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:08:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. Don't think you'll get full on #1 (9+ / 0-)

    from all folks on the heavy-control-to-banning side, but I think most of them are coming from a wildlife/animal advocacy standpoint first, rather than a weapons-control one.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:43:17 AM PST

  •  All your illegitimate uses (12+ / 0-)

    are already illegal. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this?
    I can tell you that #5 is a pet peeve of mine (which is not to say I'm cool with the other 4, of course)

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:43:28 AM PST

    •  Great! Then we agree on them! (8+ / 0-)

      That's the point.

      Not trying to do anything other than get to a point where we agree.  We agree that these specific uses are not a legitimate use of a weapon, and should not be supported.

      Seriously, I'm really glad we're on the same page here.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:45:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I copied that you tube before and forwarded it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      to those I know who might appreciate it's subtlety.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:14:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry that it took me so long to get to a (0+ / 0-)

      machine that allowed me to pull this. However, when I finally did, all I could see was some asshole shooting a gun. Nothing unusual there. And I agree that the entire thing is objectionable, but possibly not in the same way for both of us. In fact I can't even find a conceivable violation.

      Please elucidate.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:04:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What about "fighting off tyranny"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, krwada

    A regular argument of the gun enthusiasts is that guns are necessary for the people to throw off a tyrannical government.  This argument is brought out in nearly ALL discussions about guns

    So I will pose the question here: is having a gun to fight off a tyrannical government a legitimate use of a gun?

    In my own opinion, having a gun to fight off a tyrannical government IS a legitimate use of a gun.  But, I admit my thinking on this matter is not very deep and I am open to persuasion.  So I appreciate hearing the opinions of others on this point.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:46:24 AM PST

    •  Grey area, and not under discussion right now. (6+ / 0-)

      I'm starting with barest black and white in the interest of creating a consensus.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:49:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that it runs the gamut (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, PavePusher

      some harbor a juvenile wish to engage in a "Red Dawn" type of insurgency against threats both foreign and domestic, while others think that the mere act of private ownership is a prophylactic against such an event (though hard to prove a negative).

      In any case, "you can't beat them drones, man".

      Personally, I am not a hunter.  I have never in the past, nor would in the future, shoot at a living thing.  I don't have anything against responsible hunting, recognize and support the necessity for such in terms of deer herd culling.

      As we have impacted the environment and decimated the natural balance of predators, unchecked deer populations are ruinous to general herd health.

      I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

      by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:00:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If the words being used (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catesby, Smoh, oldpotsmuggler, trumpeter

      are "legitimate" and "illegitimate," then fighting off someone's definition of tyranny - laws of the state/nation opposed by shooting the human agents who act on behalf of the state/nation - is and will always remain...

      illegitimate.

      Now, if you win you get to relabel it later as "revolution." Until you win, it's just murder, insurrection, rebellion, sedition, whatever.

      •  An excellent point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, Joieau, glorificus

        but once again it mires us back in the legality argument which tends to derail the conversation.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:09:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are no doubt (0+ / 0-)

          lots and lots of NRA/Teahadist wingnuts who would gladly argue that the 2nd amendment makes assassination of political leaders, police, military and other government agents "legal" because... 2nd amendment. Yet strangely enough, murder of government agents is prosecuted in this country as murder. And murder is illegal just like insurrection, rebellion and sedition. Always has been.

          Others maintain the 2nd amendment is about the human right of self defense, expanded to include defense of property as well as other people. There are some here who would argue that humans have no inherent right to defend their lives or property, but that is not exactly a majority position (if majority position governed constitutional or human right).

          Guns were prevalent on the frontiers of this nation for as long as white people have claimed to own this continent. For defense against person and property against wild animals, wild natives, crazy neighbors, etc. And for hunting - the provision of food for the family. Even if the butchering was done by someone else (a common practice), for money or in trade for some of the meat. Hunting, in case nobody noticed, is rather strictly regulated in all states, as is fishing (and nobody's trying to outlaw fish hooks).

          But I heard discussion on the radio this weekend about that 'militia' clause, and how it was included to convince slave states to sign onto the constitution. Those states had constituted militias whose job was to inspect all slave quarters at all plantations in the state at least once a year to ensure that no slaves had weapons.

          That's an interesting thing...

          •  I would say it doesn't make it "legal".... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, Joieau

            (unless, as you say, you win) but it makes it possible.  Whether this is good or bad depends on which side of the conflict you're on....

            Subjective, to say the least.

            •  Well, if you shoot (0+ / 0-)

              at government agents - even if they're breaking into your home in the middle of the night for no reason and without warrant - you will be summarily executed and they will not be charged or prosecuted for any crime. If you have any family left alive they might someday win a lawsuit, but probably not.

              The law isn't really about what people perceive [subjective] to be 'right' or 'wrong', it's only about what the government considers 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate'. The government can legitimately do whatever it wants to you, up to and including depriving you of life, liberty and property. If you do anything violent to the government your actions will always be considered illegitimate.

              If you win against the government through armed rebellion your new government can label the conflict "Revolution" and give you a medal and a statue on the town square. That would justify your violence, but it wouldn't make it legitimate under the old or the new government. No government considers it legal for citizens to assassinate its functionaries at will.

              •  government agents - even if they're breaking into (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau, PavePusher

                into your home in the middle of the night for no reason and without warrant.

                This isn't universally true.  Last year, I believe it was the state of Indiana passed a law to the effect that a person has every right to defend themselves against wrongful police raids.  Of course, one needs to survive it first.

    •  That (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, gerrilea

      falls under self defense.

      •  Is walking into your bedroom and shooting the (0+ / 0-)

        woman that your wife is having sex with in your bed self defense?

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:40:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (4+ / 0-)

          That has nothing to do with self defense. That's murder, or at least manslaughter.

          •  The law has said in the past , once nearly (0+ / 0-)

            universally in this country, such conduct is not criminal. And, if you parse the words of decision, there is much that can very reaonably be read as an affirmation of retaining domestic tranquility, which is at least akin to what we now label as "self protection", at least when the operative facts occur within a domicile.

            So, all bullshit aside, are people allowed to use guns to kill others in situations like this, or not?

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:20:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is getting off into the weeds but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, gerrilea

          by itself, as you describe it, no, it would not meet the legal definition of self defense.  Unless you are being threatened in such a manner that a "reasonable person" would believe there to be an actual threat of grave bodily harm, sexual assault, or death, it would not be self defense.

          In order to meet the requirements of justifiable use of lethal force in self defense, the threat needs to have: the ABILITY to carry out the threat (e.g. they have a weapon that can inflict sufficient harm), the OPPORTUNITY (e.g. they are within range of the weapon), and you must currently be in JEOPARDY (e.g. they are saying that they are going to kill you, while brandishing said weapon).

          •  Do you think (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, gerrilea

            those qualifications could possibly be met when jack booted thugs kick down your door?

            •  And we are certainly (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, gerrilea

              off in the weeds here!

              Apologies to the diarist.

            •  It doesn't even have to be jack booted thugs (0+ / 0-)

              In most states, there is a term referred to as Castle Doctrine.  As with most law, it varies state by state, but generally speaking, Castle Doctrine states that if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your home, that it is assumed that they are doing so with the intention of causing you great harm.  The operative terms being unlawfully and forcibly, which preempt a situation like inviting someone over and having a fight with them.  This isn't to say that someone you invite over couldn't end up presenting a case of justified self defense, but Castle Doctrine would not apply.

              The part about assuming the intention of causing harm is important, because as someone else pointed out, most burglars want "stuff" and want to get out.  Someone who is willing to commit an active home invasion, with occupants present, is a much more serious threat, most likely with different intents.

              This question, actually is within the scope as set by the author as they stated, self defense in the home.  It is still important to understand that there is a legal framework governing the terms of self defense, even in the home.  It is not a free for all.

              Anyone, who chooses to own, or carry a firearm for the purposes of self defense has a inherent responsibility to understand and adhere to the laws.  It is a great responsibility and in many ways someone who has taken on this responsibility no longer has the freedoms that someone else does.  For example, they no longer have the freedom to "flip the bird" at someone because doing so could make them the aggressor to an ensuing conflict, in which case they could be guilty of murder or manslaughter.

              •  UMM (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, gerrilea

                have to disagree with that one. Flipping the bird at someone is First Amendment. You don't give up your First Amendment rights when exercising your Second Amendment rights.

                You and I both know that words cannot provoke a physical assault.

                •  "Flipping the bird" is not necessarilly protected (0+ / 0-)

                  under 1st amendment.  The first amendment stipulates that government may not prohibit speech, it says nothing about private speech, such as between individuals, or an individual and their private employer.  It also exempts certain kinds of speech from protection.  As it related to self defense, it is not so much about the speech as it is about being the aggressor to a confrontation.  You you achieve the same effect in numerous ways.  

                  With regards to the idea that

                  words cannot provoke a physical assault.
                  I am sure you understand this to be false.  Go into a bad neighborhood, walk up to someone and say, "what you looking at mf'er" and see if you provoke a physical response.   Such an action would also constitute being an aggressor according to most self defense laws.
              •  You know, as near as I can tell, someone is (0+ / 0-)

                playing "tag team" here. And I, for one, resent it tremendously.

                In fact, this sounds like an NRA talking point to me.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:25:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is straight from my state's self defense (0+ / 0-)

                  and castle doctrine statutes.  Here is a link right from the NC Legislature's website.

                  In fact, if we want go get into particulars, in the state of North Carolina, one is even allowed to be the initial aggressor of a confrontation and still claim, or rather regain the right to self defense.  See 14-51.4.

  •  What about a legal #6? (7+ / 0-)

    Armed defense against someone outside your home?

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:52:39 AM PST

  •  One would think that these would be common (5+ / 0-)

    sense, but sadly...

    Thank you for posting the bare bones of it.

  •  Tipped and rec'd (9+ / 0-)

    for rational discussion.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:21:54 AM PST

  •  Armed robbery, road rage, gang "wars" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, Cedwyn, annecros, PavePusher, gerrilea

    domestic violence, "respect" killing, just plain crazy . . .

    Might be easier if you just ran down the list of the actual circumstance of America's gun deaths . . . because very few people will "approve" of most of them.

    You'll also get near universal approval if you figure out a way to disarm the perps before you disarm those simply wishing to defend themselves,  'cause that's the "fatal flaw" of almost all "gun control" schemes . . . they don't target the "bad guys" who are actually doing most of the killing.  They target the "tool" not the "tool user".  Tough on guns but soft on crime is not going to be either effective or popular.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:24:41 AM PST

  •  Two (admittedly minor) thoughts... (5+ / 0-)

    1) The characterization of hunting as a hobby. I would agree that many (even most?) people hunt as a hobby, yet there are substantial reasons for hunting that have nothing to do with hobbies - subsistence hunting and game control. I am not an expert in either field, although any wildlife biologist worth their salt will expound at length on the necessity for planned wildlife management, which includes hunting. As far as subsistence hunting goes, my BIL spent his early life eating wild game, in and out of season, because there was no viable alternative. I'm sure that situation has not completely vanished into the past.

    2) I would characterize these as a non-exclusive list of black/white, legitimate and non-legitimate purposes. It does seem that is your intent, but Socrates used to pull some tricky stuff way back when by getting people to agree that "of course" these are the basic premises and then the inexorable conclusions that followed didn't allow for oversight on premises. I don't believe that is your intent, but it's best to state such things up front.

  •  There are some stories (11+ / 0-)

    that are so strange they cannot be explained.  Florida homeowner shoots naked man trying to strangle his Rottweiler.  There are legal issues involved, since a dog is considered "chattel" and not a person, but tell the pootie/woozle people that at the risk of life and limb.  

    The vision of a guy attacking a Rottie with his participles dangling within reach of those jaws boggles the mind.  He may have reason to thank the homeowner for shooting him.

    Story on Professor Turley's blog here.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:39:42 AM PST

  •  I disagree on #1 and haven't even started (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deward Hastings

    to read the rest.

    Maybe you should do a little less of telling other people what to do and stick to self reflection.

    You don't get to define when and how anyone else can legally hunt. You disagree with game laws as written in 50 states.

    Maybe a little more reading a little less writing.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:10:18 AM PST

  •  I think most could agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes

    that a legitimate use of a gun is by police forces.

    •  Quite probably. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Joy of Fishes, glorificus, trumpeter

      However, I was confining my list primarily to private use.

      Again, something that we can reach consensus on is good, but that gets into the ramifications of why guns are needed by police, and a whole other mess of issues that will prevent agreement.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:15:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think he's talking about LEO use. (7+ / 0-)

      And the badge doesn't legitimize all uses of a firearm.

      Just like it didn't legitimize all uses of pepper spray.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:15:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No it doesn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        which is why I see it as a legitimate use granted by the people for a specific purpose.  We, as people, give police that permission.

        I was raised in the UK where arming regular police was not seen as a legitimate use.

        So I think it belongs in a list of legitimate uses of guns that we all can agree on.  For policing.

        •  I would prefer that we all agree to try to figure (0+ / 0-)

          out how to do it the British way.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:51:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That is theoretically sound but in practice we (0+ / 0-)

          have a problem.  The police have gone beyond "legitimate" and have gotten immunity for it.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:22:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Um, not me. They are the ones that shouldn't have (0+ / 0-)

      them.  "Peace Officer", right?  They should be trained to defend peace, using peaceful methods to accomplish said goal, right?

      The implied threat of force is not peaceful.

      Should they be trained to arms, absolutely but bearing them while walking down the street to keep peace, I'm having a real problem with how it's devolved into their first choice, not their last and then the ensuing coverups, lies and ultimately being deemed, "justifiable".

      It would put an end to the no knock 3am raids that kill innocents all over this country, would it not?  How many hundreds of people have been killed because the police got the wrong address? Or the victim had the same or similar names?  Or the victim was autistic or deaf or physically disabled? How many animals have they killed claiming they were afraid for their lives?

      We've all seen the horrifying videos and news reports.

      They are the last ones that should have guns today.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:20:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hate to be disagreeable (2+ / 0-)

    But I disagree.  I mean yeah, in theory this is all well and good, but the fact remains that trying to protect the right to the first group of activities exposed the children at newtown to mass murder (from the second group).  

    The one that specifically stands out to me is target practice.  There is no way on gods green earth that the right to target practice with semi automatic rifles containing 30-100 magazine clips is more important than working to prevent another sandy hook.  We don't let people engage in "sport" with dynamite for crying out loud.  

    That said, since our, IMO, weird gun culture isn't going to change just because I want it to, I wish we could pass laws confining these weapons (which is all they are, not tools or toys or anything else) to shooting ranges.  Hunting rifles and shotguns and revolvers for wide consumption, but if you want to feel the power of 100 bullets at the tips of your fingers, you should have to rent one at a shooting range and return it when you're done.  These weapons should not be milling about in someone's cupboard waiting for the next Adam Lanza to swipe them.

    •  Thank you for your input. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, Smoh, glorificus

      I take it that you are for the pro gun control side, and while I share many of your beliefs, if we do not acknowledge that there are legitimate uses, we have lost the battle before it is even joined.

      Now, I'm not trying to state that any gun should be available for target practice at any time, just because they want it.  However, I think we can agree that the sport of target shooting is a legitimate use of a firearm.

      We can argue about magazine sizes, licenses, etc, but the point I'm trying to make is that nobody wants to BAN the sport.  Some of us may want more regulation, (And I freely admit I want LOTS of it.) but unless we're willing to state that firing ranges and target shooting are legitimate uses, we really don't have any grounds for the other side to come to the table here.

      I understand your frustration and emotion on this.  Trust me, I am highly concerned at what is out there.  However, in this diary, I'm trying to start from the very bottom.

      I hope you can understand why, and that I mean no disrespect to my allies.  I simply feel that some respect given to the other side's legitimate position will go a long way towards working towards a solution.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:43:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I haven't a seen anyone (1+ / 0-)

        arguing to ban the practice (I'm sorry, I just can't refer to it as a sport).  It's just that every time gun control is discussed, we hear about the slippery slope to confiscation or other things that haven't been proposed by anyone, and I'm not into furthering that.

        Since no one has ever argued that shooting ranges or shooting competitions should be banned, I don't see why the practice becomes an argument for guns.  It is bad argument, frankly.  It may be a legit use in a vacuum, but by itself it serves no practical function that could ever justify exposing our children to mass murder.  Honestly I wish the semi auto shooting enthusiasts would take up archery.  At the very least I wish nancy Lanza had.

        I do get what you're trying to do.  I respect your effort to inject civility.  Yes, shooting practice is a legit and fine activity, but to me the desire to engage in it justifies absolutely no pro-gun laws in my mind.  I've been seeing "sport" listed as a supposedly legit reason to have semi autos and high number magazine clips and I just don't consider that a legit justification for these weapons.

        •  I hear you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, glorificus

          What you're getting into is one of the stickiest arguments that I've been unfortunate enough to have to deal with.

          That is of course the "Right" vs "Need" argument.

          It has shut down numerous discussions practically instantly.

          Before we get into that one, we absolutely must have a baseline of assumptions and an established level of civility.

          I understand.  I truly do.  I personally want much heavier restrictions on the hobby as well.

          I'm not trying to endorse the "Slippery Slope" argument, any more than I'm trying to endorse the "No legitimate use" argument.  I'm trying to find a middle ground where we can stand.

          As Archimedes said:  "ΕΛΕΓΕ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΩΡΙΣΤΙ ΦΩΝΗ ΣΥΡΑΚΟΥΣΙΑ,
          “ΠΑ ΒΩ ΚΑΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΙΩΝΙ ΤΑΝ ΓΑΝ ΚΙΝΗΣΩ ΠΑΣΑΝ"

          Or in the vernacular.  "Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world."

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:05:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          detroitmechworks, glorificus

          I tend to agree. I appreciate your attempt detroitmechworks, I just think we need to start thinking and talking about things differently than we have in the US for many years now if we actually want things to change. I don't really object to your first few items, but the perception people have that they have a legitimate need for handguns in particular is a driving force in the number of gun deaths we have in this country. They are just too easily turned from legitimate to illegitimate use.

          •  Which is exactly why we need to discuss... (2+ / 0-)

            what is and isn't a legitimate use, IMHO.

            Once we have that established we can move into the ramifications of what that entails for everyone.

            I specifically did not name types of weapons or any of their capabilities for exactly that reason.  Many of these weapons I want heavily regulated or banned.  

            If we're going to have any discussion on this, we need to have a point at which we have common ground.

            From there, we can move things around.

            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

            by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:21:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I kinda think (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              detroitmechworks

              the self-defense one would need a little more defining. Someone holding a baseball bat over the head of a member of the family? I think defending that person is a scenario that probably most everybody would agree on, but that is maybe the least likely thing to happen. Most intruders just want to steal stuff and get out quickly. What if they pick up your laptop with 2 years of work on it and start running out the door, for example?

              •  In terms of lethal force (2+ / 0-)

                a widely accepted standard is: "the otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily harm, sexual assault, or death".

                With regards to "stealing stuff" or other forms of property crime, it is generally considered acceptable to use force to prevent it, however, the level of force needs to be appropriate (subject to the proverbial reasonable person definition).  As an example, it is not appropriate to punch someone (hard hands) for yelling at you (verbal).  Soft hands may or may not be appropriate depending upon the specifics of the action.

                A typical force continuum would be as follows:
                Physical presence
                Verbal commands
                Empty or soft hands
                hard hands (fist) or intermediate weapons
                Lethal force

  •  well, using guns as hammers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpotsmuggler, glorificus

    lots of movies show them using guns to hammer up the wanted poster.  
    the other aspect of this is of course the old saw about having a hammer and everything looking like a nail.

  •  I pretty much agree with all of these. (1+ / 0-)

    As a jumping-off point, certainly.

    I would add the caveat that "this is a legitimate use for a gun" does not necessarily translate to "this legitimate use for a gun is a strong reason not to ban the guns generally used for this purpose."

  •  I suggest that maintaining the proficiency to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Deward Hastings, gerrilea

    safety and effectively accomplish your listed legitimate purposes is itself a legitimate purpose.

  •  Another good post and discussion. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    detroitmechworks, glorificus

    I agree on all points, with nuance on #1 - for some people, hunting is necessity.  Hobby implies is is just for fun.  

    Thank you, detroit!

    I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

    by Joy of Fishes on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:11:31 AM PST

  •  "I don't think that anybody is going to disagree.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, gerrilea

    ...that folks who enjoy shooting sports should have their hobby completely curtailed."

    Completely? Since shooting sports hurt no one what part of it should be curtailed?

    As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

    by wishbone on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:30:37 AM PST

  •  fascinating. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    DMW tries to set a baseline, and a lot of people start playing games with language and definitions and meanings, or try to re-define or derail the conversation.

    This thread pretty well shows why this conversation is going nowhere on a national level.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:08:31 PM PST

    •  I actually consider this a rousing success. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter, glorificus, PavePusher, noway2

      Considering what we're working against.

      This is only the second one of these diaries I've ever posted.

      Considering the lack of name-calling, invective and numerous other things, I call this a win.

      As long as we all come to these with a real desire to find common ground, I still have hope.

      There will always be those who do not argue in good faith, and the only thing I can do with that is to suggest they find another diary, because it will not be welcome in WCWAO diaries.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 02:35:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, yeah, except for the fact.... (0+ / 0-)

      that one has to do exactly that to set the baselines, sure, whatever.

  •  Your #4 legitimate use is far too narrow. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea

    I have a right to defend myself any place that adequete security is not provided, and guaranteed, for me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site