If someone tries to steal your car should you have the right to shoot and kill them?

Page 35 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

If someone tries to steal your car should you have the right to shoot and kill them?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other (answer in thread)


Results are only viewable after voting.

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
Of course, but the persons should be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the very real and immediate threat to their life exists.

So, it is not for YOU to judge how someone should react to a particular situation, as long as they can honestly say they were in fear for their life.

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
So, it is not for YOU to judge how someone should react to a particular situation, as long as they can honestly say they were in fear for their life.

MotionMan

As long as they can say that their life was in immediate danger, and they were able to make that determination. But most people (as this thread proves) either do not agree with me on this or are not able to make that determination, thus they shouldn't have guns.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
As long as they can say that their life was in immediate danger, and they were able to make that determination. But most people (as this thread proves) either do not agree with me on this or are not able to make that determination, thus they shouldn't have guns.

It appears that you require a higher level of risk to believe "My life is in danger". Just because other people have a lower level does not make them wrong.

For me, if someone managed to get my door open and was reaching for my person, my life is in danger. That may not match your standard, but, since the standard is subjective (i.e. personal), your opinion is irrelevant.

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It appears that you require a higher level of risk to believe "My life is in danger". Just because other people have a lower level does not make them wrong.

For me, if someone managed to get my door open and was reaching for my person, my life is in danger. That may not match your standard, but, since the standard is subjective (i.e. personal), your opinion is irrelevant.

MotionMan

It's not just me that don't think that, there are people in this thread, and my government don't agree that someone opening your car door and reaching out to you warrants execution.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
It's not just me that don't think that, there are people in this thread, and my government don't agree that someone opening your car door and reaching out to you warrants execution.

It is not execution. It is deadly force in the face of subjectively perceived (the standard you agreed to) deadly force.

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It is not execution. It is deadly force in the face of subjectively perceived (the standard you agreed to) deadly force.

MotionMan

I don't understand how you could argue that someone who is reaching out to touch you is putting your life in immediate, definite, absolute. Rather than potential danger.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
I don't understand how you could argue that someone who is reaching out to touch you is putting your life in immediate, definite, absolute. Rather than potential danger.

Under your hypothetical, I am sitting in my car, unawares, and, all of a sudden my door is opened and someone reaches for me and grabs me and starts to pull me with enough force to eject me from the car.

That is not a touch.

To do that to me, 6'3", 240 lbs., requires a significant amount of force. To most people, that could reasonably subjectively (the standard you agreed to) be perceived as deadly force.

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Under your hypothetical, I am sitting in my car, unawares, and, all of a sudden my door is opened and someone reaches for me and grabs me and starts to pull me with enough force to eject me from the car.

That is not a touch.

To do that to me, 6'3", 240 lbs., requires a significant amount of force. To most people, that could reasonably subjectively (the standard you agreed to) be perceived as deadly force.

MotionMan

I don't know how someone grabbing you and pulling you can be perceived of deadly force, unless you are teetering over the edge of a cliff or something then it might make sense. But this is exactly my point, some people perceive things as deadly force required when to most people it clearly wouldn't be, as people are so subjective they shouldn't have guns backing up their subjective perceptions.

the more you argue that what requires deadly force is a subjective view the more you make my case for not allowing personal gun ownership.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Last edited:

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
I don't know how someone grabbing you and pulling you can be perceived of deadly force

I cannot be blamed for your ignorance and lack of intelligence. Just assume that it can be subjectively (the standard you agreed to) perceived as deadly force

But this is exactly my point, some people perceive things as deadly force required when to most people it clearly wouldn't be, as people are so subjective they shouldn't have guns backing up their subjective perceptions.

You agreed that the standard should be subjective. If you felt otherwise, you should have said so.

the more you argue that what requires deadly force is a subjective view the more you make my case for not allowing personal gun ownership.

I did not argue that it was subjective, you agreed that it was subjective. If you felt otherwise, you should have said so.

I do not own a gun, but, until there is a foolproof way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, I am glad that law-abiding citizens can own guns.

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Hey Guyz, I think I just figured out where neckbeard is coming from with his thoughts.

I recently uncovered some CCTV video (posted for all to see, of course), of one of his recent bike rides in his neighborhood. It gives us a glimpse into how he thinks. I hope this will help us to understand where he is coming from in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsM0CwqGrBs


found some more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmzHkfKP4MY&feature=related

I love Eric Idle, I wish that was where I got my ideas.

I cannot be blamed for your ignorance and lack of intelligence. Just assume that it can be subjectively (the standard you agreed to) perceived as deadly force

I cannot be blamed for your delusion or paranoia


You agreed that the standard should be subjective. If you felt otherwise, you should have said so.

I did not argue that it should be subjective I argued that it is subjective. As no one rule can be applied to every situation.

I did not argue that it was subjective, you agreed that it was subjective. If you felt otherwise, you should have said so.

I do not own a gun, but, until there is a foolproof way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, I am glad that law-abiding citizens can own guns.

MotionMan

I know you are. I'm not.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Animals have no comprehension of morality, the rules don't apply to them. We have a higher intellect (for the most part) and so should hold our selves to higher standards

No shit Sherlock. They also can't build guns and holsters. If they were intellectually capable of creating a defensive weapons system I think you'd have to assume they were of a high enough intellect to develop a sense of morality.

Not that it has anything to do with anything. As I said before, if they could, they sure as hell would.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
I cannot be blamed for your delusion or paranoia

It is delusional and paranoid to think that you are in danger when your car door is suddenly opened and you are grabbed with enough force, by one individual, to eject you from the car?

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
No shit Sherlock. They also can't build guns and holsters. If they were intellectually capable of creating a defensive weapons system I think you'd have to assume they were of a high enough intellect to develop a sense of morality.

Not that it has anything to do with anything. As I said before, if they could, they sure as hell would.

OK cool.

It is delusional and paranoid to think that you are in danger when your car door is suddenly opened and you are grabbed with enough force, by one individual, to eject you from the car?

MotionMan

It is delusional and paranoid to assume immediately that they are trying to kill you.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,123
12
81
It is delusional and paranoid to assume immediately that they are trying to kill you.

It is delusional and dangerous to assume they are not going to kill you, unless, of course, you live in Mamby-Pandy-Land. I, on the other hand, live in the real world.

What is your first reaction when that happens, they want to give you a big hug?

MotionMan
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It is much better when only the criminals have guns.

Now who is being delusional and paranoid?

MotionMan

It's much better where no one has guns, or a very small percentage of people have guns, or where you cant buy a gun at a supermarket.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61

Actually it's not OK... You stated that animals protect themselves with no weapons or training as though they had some kind of choice in the matter. As if they made the conscious choice not to arm up. It was another ludicrous statement in a gigantic thread full of assinine asertions and hypothetical situations by you.

The fact that you would tacitly agree with my assertion that zebras would pack heat if they could is... well... I almost fell out of my seat when I saw your response.