To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

Re:To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls by jessaustin on Tuesday March 07, 2017 @07:07PM (#13816542)

Certainly, a wallet (or a jewel!) isn't worth anyone's death, even a criminal's. One doesn't carry in order to defend a wallet. Any decent person would gladly lose $100 and some credit cards, not to have a death on her conscience. A criminal should know, however, that by violating the norms of polite society, he places himself in a fraught situation. It's very easy to cross the line between credibly threatening property and credibly threatening safety.

One carries in order to defend lives. One's own life, the lives of family, and if the situation warrants the lives of other innocent people. It's true that defending life with deadly force will get one in trouble in some jurisdictions. That's why it's better to live in the vast majority of jurisdictions where justified uses of deadly force prompt handshakes rather than criminal charges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls by Symbiote on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @04:09AM (#13819023)

Deadly force absolutely must get one in trouble, in order to determine whether the force was appropriate or not. That much we owe to the deceased and their family.

The best jurisdiction is one where it's hardly considered necessary to carry arms, or use deadly force. Gun ownership and the murder rate (and gun murder rate) seem roughly correlated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls by tropo on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @08:47PM (#13826085)

This is "guilty until proven innocent". That isn't how law is supposed to work. We are supposed to assume that the force was appropriate. Of course, this doesn't mean we don't bother investigating, but the proper assumption is that a person is innocent.

In states that endorse "innocent until proven guilty", the police won't even lock you up or take your gun if you can make a plausible claim to have properly used force.

When the force is appropriate, we owe nothing to the deceased and their family. The deceased was a hazard, and the family set that hazard loose upon society. They owe us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_fee

I see that your article does not distinguish legal gun ownership from illegal gun ownership. I suspect that "murder" might not be the obvious. (suicide? shot by cop? vehicular homocide?) Medical care varies greatly by state, changing survival odds. You may also be making a backwards assumption about cause and effect: people in places with lots of murder might feel a greater need to have a gun.

[ Parent | on HN ]