@freemo and I feel like this is where we disagree.

Yes destroying someone property is wrong, but it’s not a reason to kill someone’s.

It should have been the role of the court to prosecute the guy who destroyed cars. This is more like an extrajudicial killing.

@louisrcouture I think that if someone is destroying property they should get a warning (and was) and if they dont comply shooting is fine.

Again though, was the person he aimed the gun at actually one of the people he shot or was involved int he incident? At worse even if i take your interpretation it was just some unrelated dude he interacted with earlier in the night and is unrelated to the events that unfolded anyway.

The reason i am perfectly ok with someone who is intentionally causing property damage, after being warned, being shot is because in the end the vast majority of criminals get away. I see no reason a victim should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in damage simply to protect the life of someone engaging in illegal activity. Particularly when such people will almost always get away, so relying on cops or courts means you will almost certainly never see justice.

Moreover even if the courts do handle it often times the people are too poor to pay the cost of the damage they do so the owner is still left with tens of thousands of dollars out of his pocket. That said one would expect if you do shoot such a person that you arent aiming to kill.

All this is moot though because, again, you are talking about a person that never was actually shot by kyle nor had any involvement with the incident anyway.

@freemo wait, then who and how were killed

@louisrcouture in the video i linked you you can see all the people who were shot and killed.. first person was the guy chasing him and throwing stuff at him, who he shot only once he got within arms reach. then a large mob formed that followed him as he fled (at the advice of 911). Second person killed you can see when he falls to the ground fleeing and the mob starts to swat at him as he is ont he floor, he then shoots again killing the second person who was assaulting him. finally around that same time you can see a person run up on him with a handgun whom he then shoots and does not kill but has a bleeding arm.

2 deaths one injured is everyone.

@freemo @louisrcouture
Why did you move to the Netherlands if these are your views? No gun ownership here, absolutely no open carry. Had this happened in the Netherlands he would be incredibly guilty, no question.

And if you really want to kill someone that damages your car, please move back to the USA...

@kingannoy

I moved there because the taxes are spent more responsibly and because i like the people.

And no i dont want yo kill someone for damaging my car, thus why id warn them first and not shoot to kill.

By the way way to go acting like an american and telling an immigrant to go back to their own country ::golf clap::
@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture
This message came off more confrontational then I'd intended it, sorry about that. To be clear, I absolutely disagree with your views on property damage warranting bodily harm or death.

I'm just wondering how that fits in the context of the almost gun free country you are in now.

@kingannoy
Apology accepted.

The best answer i can give you is that I dont need to agree with everything about a country to love it. There are many things i feel the netherlands does wrong, and lack of sane gun rights is a huge one. That said there are many other things about the netherlands I love and those things are enough for me to accept the short comings.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture
I think the examples you mention are less likely to harm someone in the Netherlands. Intentional property damage is less likely in a more fair society for example. Making it less necessary to arm yourself with a deadly weapon.

In light of that, don't you think that focussing on those improvements, that improve life for everyone, is the better course for a society? Instead of arming everyone?

@kingannoy
Im not sure i would need to pick one or the other. I can promote a more fair society and still promote guns. I dont see a huge need to pick one right over another.

I can say that a society where guns need to be used less to defend yourself is a good goal to have.
@louisrcouture

@freemo @kingannoy in all respects. Couldn’t the things that make Netherlands a better place than the USA, (less violence, in particular), be because of the current policies they implement, such as gun control https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8?op=1

@louisrcouture

They **could** be yes.. and at least **some** of their policies likely contribute to that.

But while it **could** be due to their policy on guns I strongly do not beleive it **is**. In fact I think there are a few policies having nothing to do with guns that leads to this and some things that arent policy related at all.

Not policy: The culture of morality that is passed down/taught from generation to generations. Also a lack of taboo around seeking therapy and other mental health

Policy:

1) healthcare that gives them access to therapy (as broken as it is its still better than the USA in this regard)

2) The fact that if you call police they probably wont shoot you, your dog, and your kids for your trouble

3) Cheaper access to education, which in turn leads to better access to jobs above the poverty line

@kingannoy

@freemo @louisrcouture
The American police being too trigger happy is surely not helped by lax gun regulations, right? It's not the only reason they are as fucked up as they are, but it can't help.

We will sadly always have some violent confrontations in society. Some policies can decrease the amount of confrontations, like decreasing inequality, improving healthcare, welfare.

Fewer guns lowers the ceiling on the violent outcome of confrontations.

@kingannoy

I think its fair to say some portion of police shooting unarmed victims is simply a mistake that might not have happened if guns were less common. I cant really say wht perportion it is but I suspect that is a very small part of the problem for several reasons.

1) Cops overwhelmingly support the 2A and generally claim they want to see citiizens armed. If they were scared for their life I doubt they would be saying this.

2) The overwhelming perportion of people who shoot cops are criminals who got their guns illegally, and as such would not have been prevented by gun laws (especially considering guns are easily manufactured in private workshops)

3) I doubt all those dogs they are shooting were because they thought they were hiding a gun

4) the overwhelming number of cops I have met who have demonstrated they are bad people (and the statistics such as them having huge perportions of spouse abuse) suggests to me the problem isnt the guns, its the cops.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @kingannoy if you read the article you would have known that such claims are already adressed.

Mental illness does not cause violence, in fact mentally ill people are more likely to be victim of violence rather than perpetrators.

US states with stricter gun laws have less shootings than others us state and no us state have free healthcare

@louisrcouture

Actually i didnt notice you had attached a link to your comment. Not sure how I missed that.

Not all mental disorders lead to violence, in fact a great many dont. But are you not familiar with anger management therapy. Anger, in and of itself, is treated by therapists just as much as schizofrenia. Therapy isnt about disorders, its about addressing the dark parts of you in all shapes and form.

I also want to point out there are a ton of mental disorders that explicitly have violence as a symptom. For example one criteria for Intermittent explosive disorder is that you must have at least 3 episodes or more a year where you cause physical injury to others.

The idea that us states with stricter gun laws have less shootings is what we call the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and it is **not** how good statistics work. For causality we always show that a change in law is followed by a change in the trend of violence, we do not use static correlations. The reason for this should be obvious, if guns stop violence then states with more violence have greater pressure to have lax gun laws as people have a greater need to be protected. So in fact what you think is the cause and effect is in fact reversed from the reality. The guns arent causing the violence, the violence is causing the guns.

If we actually do look at proper statistical analysis where one looks at a change in law and then observes the change in rates of violence that follow in the years after we see, in fact, a quite strong trend where restrictions of guns lead to an increase in violence and homicides.

@kingannoy

@kingannoy @freemo @louisrcouture You're a bit harsh about him: protecting your property could get you off the hook in the Netherlands.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noodweer_(Nederlands_strafrecht)

@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo
That doesn't mention property though, only yourself or someone else's safety from (sexual or physical) assault. And it's very clear on proportionality. The defence should be proportional to the attack.

I remember well publicized cases of shoplifters getting punched and burglars beaten with a baseball bat that were under heavy discussion. Very different from getting shot with a automatic rifle in a public space.

@kingannoy

I wont claim to know or interprit dutch law. I will say that shooting without the intent to kill, particularly if warned first, is a perfectly proportional response to intentional property damage.

Stomping on a car can easily cause 10K+ worth of damage. With dutch health insurance a shot to the leg might cost 1/10th of that. Likewise stomping on a car could lead to all sorts of collateral damage, including that car exploding, so the person is defending, indirectly, against potential safety risks just as the person being shot has a risk of having permanent injury.

So yea, seems proportional to me.

@frank87 @louisrcouture

@freemo @kingannoy @louisrcouture I'm with @kingannoy on the proportionality...
Shooting people is not really appreciated by Dutch judges. There should be some serious thread and little alternatives.
(By the way: the health insurance will sue you for hospital costs)

@frank87

I may not know dutch law in any detail but I will say I kinda expect shooting anyone, ever, for any reason (even if they are literally trying to kill you) probably wont fly in a dutch court. The Dutch just dont see a gun for self defense as ever justified.

Obviously I think they are egregiously incorrect. But I'm not a Dutch judge so that makes little difference WRT the law.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
Not totally true. Someone was jumped by two attackers with a knife, in a purse snatching. Using a illegal gun one of the attackers was shot, twice, and killed.

The shooter eventually got charged for illegal possession of a fire arm but the killing was deemed in self defence (noodweerexcess) so justified.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijlmer_noodweer

@kingannoy

Fair, but even having a gun outside of a range is effectively illegal so what I said is at least party true (as you pointe dout).

@frank87 @louisrcouture

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
You need to stop believing Hollywood movies.

Any gunshot is potentially lethal and will scar (physically and mentally) and potentially disable you if it isn't. If you think only the hospital costs are what needs to be accounted for you are very wrong.

And if you think you can make a car explode by stomping on it...

@kingannoy

At what point did I say that a gun shot cant be potentially lethal? I said quite the opposite that a non-lethal shot carries with it the risk of death, just as someone destroying a car cars with it the risk of death or injury to those nearby.

As for if a car can explode by stomping on it, yea its exceedingly rare, but it can happen if the damage is extensive enough. During the philly riots I have personally witnessed this happen (a car that was stomped on and overturned exploded here). So yes it can happen.

@frank87 @louisrcouture

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
One is exceedingly rare and then only potentially dangerous.

The other is extremely dangerous, quite likely lethal, likely to miss and hit a bystander, will have lasting consequences for the person (and their loved ones) if you do hit.

So I would say it's not even remotely similar or proportional.

@kingannoy @freemo @frank87 I think something that isn’t mentioned in this debate is how rare are the scenarios of « someone is trying to destroy my car » versus how often are guns related incident such as school shootings, suicides, gun violences etc.

Like is one broken car (that we could collectively have repaid through government and taxes) worse than hundreds of lives that are lost because of laxist gun control laws. (That cannot be brought back)

@louisrcouture

Guns used for protecting life and property are the overwhelming majority of incidents and school shootings and mass shootings in general are a very small percentage relative to that.

As for suicides, I leave that out. A person has a right in my mind to commit suicide and a person commiting suicide with a gun or anything else is their right to do, so in no way would I ever include that in the figures. In fact I'd go so far to say if someone wants to commit suicide they have a right to do so by whatever means they feel is best for then.

Some numbers:

percentage of times a gun is used as defense vs homicide is a whopping 81%

Percentage of people killed by guns in mass shootings (that is defined as 3 or more people so a very loose definition of mass shooting)... <1%

@kingannoy @frank87

@freemo @kingannoy @frank87 where is this source

@louisrcouture

All figures are from the CDC, gun violence archive, 2016-1018. You will have to download the data directly if you want to verify.

If you want sources on how restriction in gun laws consistently result in increase in violence in the years that follow I can get that for you again. I have posted those figures multiple times on my thread so I'd have to dig it up.

@kingannoy @frank87

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87 what percentage of these crimes and cases of self-defense wouldn't have guns involved at all if they had become rare, like in the Netherlands?

"If only criminals had guns" it'd be 100% violent crimes. But that doesn't mean it's worse. Because if the total is less than the value 19% here, you'd be better off anyway.. (that's ignoring that the cops may also go into the pie chart)

@jasper

The problem is your assumptiont hat the total amount of crime would go down is wrong. In fact it would go up, by a lot.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87

ugh finding good plots online fucking sucks.(and then we're not even interpreting what the numbers represent)

Also think it's a bit monomaniacal looking at these particular statistics at countries and when they put in this kind of legislation, while in fact lots of things were happening.

1: that's around the time the troubles in Ireland started. Probably the confiscation relates to that.
2. (ireland again) dunno about Jamaica

(1/2)

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87
3. Dunno, does the graph show a connection? Also this graph https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 shows quite a decline after. (though i can't quite match them)
4. This is as-a-fraction of violent crime. Here is one https://illinoisnewsroom.org/by-the-numbers-chicago-murder-count-through-the-years/ ... not a clear change looking at a similar time range, overall. (2/2)

@jasper

The problem with arguing "the legislation was put into place because its when trouble started" is that the point of legilsation is a pivot point. We dont see the trouble rising and then the legislation happens and it continues to rise. In most cases we see it rising slowly or being flat line, legilsation kicks in, and after the grace period (usually a year or two) the rate of violence suddenly and significantly spikes never to return.

As for your other comments, that largely has to do with how statisticians handle granger causality. AS a general rule we care about the immediate years following, usually the grace period + a few years. Once you go too far into the future you are no longer looking at granger causality but rather correlation as other factors begin to become dominant. Even then though if you do you will almost always find the numbers never or rarely falls below pre-law baseline.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87

@freemo @jasper @louisrcouture @kingannoy The "troubles" is an euphemism for the war in Ulster/Northern Ireland...
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

@frank87 @louisrcouture @kingannoy @freemo probably should have been clearer in referring to that..

@jasper

I will just leave this here to cover all the points we never even got to cover.

@frank87 @louisrcouture @kingannoy

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture @kingannoy i realized i was responding to a particular point..

That said, i feel like you're dumping a lot of things on me to "win" the argument... I'm not interested in that.

@kingannoy @louisrcouture @freemo it does: "eigen of een anders goed" is literary your of somebody else's property.

@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo
Yes, that is the only mention of property on that page. No mention of the limits of that, except that breaking into someones home doesn't qualify.

And look at this very relevant case:
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_Blijf_van_mijn_auto!

Someone kicks a car, the owner gets out of the car, the car-kicker moves to attack the owner but the owner hits first. Does not qualify for "noodweer" has to pay a fine and gets a probationary sentence.

@kingannoy @louisrcouture @freemo It not really like the fight was in defence of the car...
If he really wanted to protect the car, he would have driven away.

@freemo @louisrcouture I think it's perfectly fine to destroy your own property. If you see someone destroying an object that doesn't belong to you, how can you be certain enough that the destroyer doesn't own the object?

@robryk

Sure. The liability is with the person defending it. If you shoot someone destroying their own property then expect to go to jail for shooting an innocent person. If you, however shoot (or threaten to shoot) someone who is destroying someone elses property, and that is true, you are good.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture That interpretation makes injuring-someone-without-a-valid-justification effectively a strict liability crime. This is something that's usually strongly avoided in definitions of any serious crimes (with some infamous exceptions, like felony murder in USA). Even in (some) countries where the self defense justification requires the original attack to be real (and not just the defender to reasonably believe it is real) there is a different "mistaken belief" justification (if you perform an act that is normally a crime, you believe it's justified due to some other legal justification, and you are wrong, your act is not a crime). I know that this is the case in Polish criminal law.

Do you know if mistaken self defense is a valid justification in other jurisdictions?

@robryk

The point im making is, you are right, if you shoot someone for destroying property you better be certain it isnt his property or else you will face jail time.

It doesnt, however, meanyou can never shoot anyone for destroying property even when you know for a fact it isnt his.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture Many jurisdictions go to great lengths to not have any serious strict liability crimes, because in general they create situations where a reasonably person who knows the law might commit a crime without being aware that they're committing a crime. I believe that this is why mistaken self defense is (at least in some places) also a valid justification. You are proposing an expanded (compared to e.g. the one from Poland) notion of self defense that is OTOH narrower on the intent side (mistaken belief is not enough to invoke the justification). I don't really see why _in this particular situation_ strict liability-like semantics are bad, but I do buy that they should be used as rarely as possible. Thus I wonder if any jurisdiction you know of doesn't excuse mistaken self defense.

@robryk

I'm not a lawyer, so I really dont have an answer for you sorry.

@louisrcouture

You may not be a lawyer, yet I bet that you know how to get someone out of a charge of growing weed without state permits. :D Unlike Mike Penc who couldn't get someone out a speeding ticket.

@djatropine444 I probably stand a better chance than most of muddling my way through court if I had to :)

I'm protected from the RAVE ACT then. :D