The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Do you support stand your ground laws? in Politics
A stand your ground law is a law that protects the right of the people to use lethal or other force when there is a reasonable expectation of being murdered, torturd, whatever. I support these laws which do not target racial minorities because I value my rights over those alleged of anyone dumb enough to harm me. I have severly injured some because he tried to murder me, and that was my right. Also, who says centrists of both parties can't work together on this and other things?
What sets the stand your ground laws apart from general self defence laws is that it allows you to kill people in self defence even when there's reasonable ways to save yourself from harm that wouldn't involve killing someone, e.g. if someone on foot is trying to smash in a window of your car to get to you and you can just drive off as easily or even easier than reaching for a gun or a knife or what have you.
On this basis it seems unnecessary. If lethal force is the only safe option then that's already covered under normal self-defence law. If you don't need to kill someone - why are you choosing to? Especially when this seems to be used to justify killings of what turn out to be innocent people?
What sets the stand your ground laws apart from general self defence laws is that it allows you to kill people in self defence even when there's reasonable ways to save yourself from harm that wouldn't involve killing someone, e.g. if someone on foot is trying to smash in a window of your car to get to you and you can just drive off as easily or even easier than reaching for a gun or a knife or what have you.
On this basis it seems unnecessary. If lethal force is the only safe option then that's already covered under normal self-defence law. If you don't need to kill someone - why are you choosing to? Especially when this seems to be used to justify killings of what turn out to be innocent people?
You have the right to your opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts. I have the right to defend my life, body, property, and those of others however I see fit. I guess I was wrong to injure my rapist. Meh.
It is a complicated matter. In essence, this type of laws allows you to avoid having to flee the danger when it is coming from another individual and defend yourself however you see fit in a public space. For example, if on a public bus you are attacked by someone, you can fight them to the death.
The problem here is that the public space has a lot of factors colliding that make determination of whether you can defend yourself in a violent way ambiguous. In a private space, the owner determines what rules apply - and in your own space, you can fight anyone who invades, obviously. But in a public space, the claim on which is shared by a large number of people, you are not the only actor.
For example, if you are carrying a gun on a public bus and decide to use it to defend yourself, you are endangering everyone else on that bus. Suppose you shoot the attacker, but end up accidentally harming one of the other innocent passengers. Was this a valid use of self-defense? Should you be kept accountable for what happened, or is the danger to your life overweighs the danger to other people as a consequence of your exercise of self-defense?
Another example involves the rights of your attacker as well. Suppose someone on that bus simply started bullying you and lightly pushing you away from your seat. You decide to fight back, as, according to the "stand your ground" laws, you can prevent anyone from removing you from the place in the public space you are occupying. Is defending yourself with a knife fine, or is it an overreaction? You could say, "I can use whatever means necessary to protect being removed from my seat" - but that creates a dangerous precedent in which any minor harm results in any major legal violent response. What if the person pushing you was just your classmate, and he acted in a friendly way, just playing around, but you did not realize that?
---
In general, I am a supporter of this kind of laws, and I believe that one's rights should overweigh any rights of someone who is out to harm them. However, there is a large grey area involved, and in many cases I am not sure what the proper court ruling should be. Obviously shooting a 4 y/o boy that lightly hits your elbow is overreaction, and obviously shooting a person with a knife that goes after you is not - but in between, where do we draw the line? I do not know.
I support these laws. When there is no other option for making the attacker stop, he must be put down to eliminate the threat.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
For one there is racial discrimination on these laws where when the minority shoots a white person they tend not to be protected under these same laws. What if a cop shoves me and i feel like it is for no reason, can i kill a cop (hypothetically)?
@Ampersand I agree with you. These laws have encouraged a hubris in America that we got along well without since, well, Marshal Dillon roamed Dodge! I know, that's fallacy, but an example. We became "civilized" to a point, now we're back to the jungle! I've lived in this country for over 80 years and never needed to "carry", though I have always been a gun owner. I've walked through some of the most dangerous places in this country and a few others. Never felt the need for a gun unless I was in the military in a war zone. Why, all of a sudden do we need to protect ourselves from our own people?? It's ATTITUDE and fear spread by certain factions that profit FROM that fear. We can "MAGA" by having more faith in our first responders AND keeping "just anyone" from "carrying" with an attitude!
you shouldn't agree with Ampersand who said "What sets the stand your ground laws apart from general self defence laws is that it allows you to kill people in self defence even when there's reasonable ways to save yourself from harm that wouldn't involve killing someone," because that is factually wrong, it doesn't allow you to "kill people", when someone doesn't understand the law. there is a difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine, if you don't know what they are I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself on them if you wish. If you don't feel the need to carry good for you then don't do it, I don't either, though i can if I want, but I wouldn't deny someone else the right to do it. None of that has to do with the topic anyway. Faith in first responders? Have you any idea what so ever the response time in some areas? So she should have waited for a first responder??!?!?!!?! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-woman-fatally-shoots-escaped-inmate-who-broke-her-n944011 this was covered by their castle doctrine, but again i'm addressing your statement of waiting for responders. So I'm going to say you'd agree that saying the woman in that instance should have waited for first responders, to which you must have certain limits to the statement you made "faith in first responders" And there are limits which are decided by courts on individual basis, most notably the shooting in Florida where the guy was found guilty and was not covered under their stand your ground law.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood" The Animals
I was in suburban Detroit on Sunday; arguably the most criminal area in the US. I did not have a gun with me, and I was just fine. Felt completely safe.
But do you not see how your argument destroys itself? If you were fine in the most dangerous places in the country, then why do we need to suddenly take away people's guns? Apparently crime is not a very serious problem, including gun crime, as per your narrative.
Ironically, the only time I got attacked in my life was in a country with one of the harshest gun control systems in the world. While in the US, nothing has ever happened to me, despite allegedly a lot of people carrying guns who should not carry them.
You are right that it is about the attitude and fear spread by certain groups - but that goes both ways. Both the arguments in support of the "need" for guns, and in support of the "need for controlling" guns, are based on the attitude and fear.
Arguments
What sets the stand your ground laws apart from general self defence laws is that it allows you to kill people in self defence even when there's reasonable ways to save yourself from harm that wouldn't involve killing someone, e.g. if someone on foot is trying to smash in a window of your car to get to you and you can just drive off as easily or even easier than reaching for a gun or a knife or what have you.
On this basis it seems unnecessary. If lethal force is the only safe option then that's already covered under normal self-defence law. If you don't need to kill someone - why are you choosing to? Especially when this seems to be used to justify killings of what turn out to be innocent people?
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
The problem here is that the public space has a lot of factors colliding that make determination of whether you can defend yourself in a violent way ambiguous. In a private space, the owner determines what rules apply - and in your own space, you can fight anyone who invades, obviously. But in a public space, the claim on which is shared by a large number of people, you are not the only actor.
For example, if you are carrying a gun on a public bus and decide to use it to defend yourself, you are endangering everyone else on that bus. Suppose you shoot the attacker, but end up accidentally harming one of the other innocent passengers. Was this a valid use of self-defense? Should you be kept accountable for what happened, or is the danger to your life overweighs the danger to other people as a consequence of your exercise of self-defense?
Another example involves the rights of your attacker as well. Suppose someone on that bus simply started bullying you and lightly pushing you away from your seat. You decide to fight back, as, according to the "stand your ground" laws, you can prevent anyone from removing you from the place in the public space you are occupying. Is defending yourself with a knife fine, or is it an overreaction? You could say, "I can use whatever means necessary to protect being removed from my seat" - but that creates a dangerous precedent in which any minor harm results in any major legal violent response. What if the person pushing you was just your classmate, and he acted in a friendly way, just playing around, but you did not realize that?
---
In general, I am a supporter of this kind of laws, and I believe that one's rights should overweigh any rights of someone who is out to harm them. However, there is a large grey area involved, and in many cases I am not sure what the proper court ruling should be. Obviously shooting a 4 y/o boy that lightly hits your elbow is overreaction, and obviously shooting a person with a knife that goes after you is not - but in between, where do we draw the line? I do not know.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 5%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
No. You would be charged with a Felony Murder of a Law Enforcement Agent.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've lived in this country for over 80 years and never needed to "carry", though I have always been a gun owner. I've walked through some of the most dangerous places in this country and a few others. Never felt the need for a gun unless I was in the military in a war zone. Why, all of a sudden do we need to protect ourselves from our own people?? It's ATTITUDE and fear spread by certain factions that profit FROM that fear. We can "MAGA" by having more faith in our first responders AND keeping "just anyone" from "carrying" with an attitude!
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
you shouldn't agree with Ampersand who said "What sets the stand your ground laws apart from general self defence laws is that it allows you to kill people in self defence even when there's reasonable ways to save yourself from harm that wouldn't involve killing someone," because that is factually wrong, it doesn't allow you to "kill people", when someone doesn't understand the law.
there is a difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine, if you don't know what they are I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself on them if you wish.
If you don't feel the need to carry good for you then don't do it, I don't either, though i can if I want, but I wouldn't deny someone else the right to do it. None of that has to do with the topic anyway.
Faith in first responders? Have you any idea what so ever the response time in some areas?
So she should have waited for a first responder??!?!?!!?! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-woman-fatally-shoots-escaped-inmate-who-broke-her-n944011 this was covered by their castle doctrine, but again i'm addressing your statement of waiting for responders.
So I'm going to say you'd agree that saying the woman in that instance should have waited for first responders, to which you must have certain limits to the statement you made "faith in first responders" And there are limits which are decided by courts on individual basis, most notably the shooting in Florida where the guy was found guilty and was not covered under their stand your ground law.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was in suburban Detroit on Sunday; arguably the most criminal area in the US. I did not have a gun with me, and I was just fine. Felt completely safe.
But do you not see how your argument destroys itself? If you were fine in the most dangerous places in the country, then why do we need to suddenly take away people's guns? Apparently crime is not a very serious problem, including gun crime, as per your narrative.
Ironically, the only time I got attacked in my life was in a country with one of the harshest gun control systems in the world. While in the US, nothing has ever happened to me, despite allegedly a lot of people carrying guns who should not carry them.
You are right that it is about the attitude and fear spread by certain groups - but that goes both ways. Both the arguments in support of the "need" for guns, and in support of the "need for controlling" guns, are based on the attitude and fear.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra