Laser pointers banned after attacks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Julian
Originally Posted By: Win
Any defense of justification is a tacit admission of the charged offense.
Do you attempt to justify your actions to stop them (or enable them)?
As a lawyer specifically, I mean.
 
The "legitimate use" was played to a tee when semi-auto rifles were benned down here (and semi-auto paint ball guns became prohibited weapons).

"What legitimate use are semi auto rifles ?"
"A hunter kills with one shot, why does he need a magazine, let alone a semi auto ?"
"Target shooters only fire one shot."

I personally don't see any legitimate reason for a person to take up amateur astronomy, when there's books and pictures generated by the guys who are paid to do it.

Doesn't mean that I'd ban telescopes.
 
Check(mate). Would you like me to answer that for you? Win, lasers don't kill people. People kill people.
55.gif
 
Shannow:

I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record, but please show me a telescope that you can hide in your pocket, and then use to kill a plane load of innocent persons, from a mile away...
 
Originally Posted By: Julian
Check(mate). Would you like me to answer that for you? Win, lasers don't kill people. People kill people.
55.gif


Not. Unless we're talking about manual strangulation (or other similarly gruesome "manual techniques"), people enabled with devices that make killing easy, kill people. When such devices have no counterbalancing legitimate purpose, they need to go.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You do realize that we already have banned books (some from OZ) that are deemed propaganda and that we aren't allowed to read here due to this type of thinking.


Are you serious? What books are banned in the US now?



Perhaps pilots could simply wear laser safety glasses that filter out the unique wavelength put out by the laser pointers, and they would never have to worry about them again.

The criminals who *want* to take down planes will always be able to obtain laser pointers if they really want to.


Don't worry, the book thing is a red herring.

Laser safety glasses are problematic, as I noted way earlier in this thread. They tend to be very wavelength specific, so glasses that protect from one laser very well may offer zero protection for another equally dangerous model.

Of course, dedicated criminals and terrorists will frequently find a way. Does that mean we should make it easy for them? Does that mean we should make it easy for the disturbed teenager to head down to Wal-Mart and buy a killing tool whenever he feels like it?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
...

Plutonium? As you state, it is inherently dangerous. Set it in front of you on your desk and you (and many around you) will die a slow, horrible death. It takes NO ACTION on your part to be dangerous, and the danger cannot be easily directed. The same is basically true for poison gas (as was brought up earlier).


Nice try at distinguishing, but not persuasive. If you turn a high power laser on, and put your eyes in front of it, you'll get zapped. As with plutonium and poison gas, it's about two things: 1) inherently dangerous stuff, that's 2) in the hands of the wrong person. Sure I could possess a laser cannon for years and harm no one, just as I could possess a container of plutonium or VX and harm no one. But does that mean I should be allowed to purchase plutonium or VX?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
you're admitting that you committed murder, but you're adding that you had a legal justification for doing so.

As Gary stated, you are lumping together murder with killing in self defense. I don't believe the 2 are related.

...


Oh yes, the two are very closely related. Self-defense is an "affirmative defense", as distinct from a denial. In a denial situation, you claim you're not guilty because the gov't can't prove one or more elements of the crime you're accused. When you assert an affirmative defense, you ADMIT all the elements of the charged crime, but assume the burden of proving additional facts to establish your claimed defense (self-defense, or whatever). So yes, they are related. You have to admit the "murder" in order to assert self defense.

EDIT: which, of course, is what Win already said in other words.
cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. The people who use those devices inappropriately need counterbalance. When those people get out of control, THEY need to go. I do agree these things certainly deserve more respect than they get.
55.gif
 
OK, we can agree to disagree. I'd just say that for a lot of these guys, they don't need ready access to something that no upstanding citizen needs either. And when they do have such access, they just end up becoming what I call "clients." Hey, you don't want to see another lawyer making more money, do you?
wink.gif
 
Quote:
Edit Reason: more diplomatic language...
"Baloney" is not on my list of offensive words; feel free to use it in front of me.
grin2.gif
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Gary please get it right. Free range is not organic. Anybody eating non organic cheekn needs their had read.


Sorry ..my bad.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
you're admitting that you committed murder, but you're adding that you had a legal justification for doing so.

As Gary stated, you are lumping together murder with killing in self defense. I don't believe the 2 are related.

...


Oh yes, the two are very closely related. Self-defense is an "affirmative defense", as distinct from a denial. In a denial situation, you claim you're not guilty because the gov't can't prove one or more elements of the crime you're accused. When you assert an affirmative defense, you ADMIT all the elements of the charged crime, but assume the burden of proving additional facts to establish your claimed defense (self-defense, or whatever). So yes, they are related. You have to admit the "murder" in order to assert self defense.


Murder is an unlawful killing. By your definition the death penalty would allow murder.

If you, after having killed an assailant who tried chibbing you, want to proclaim, "I have murdered this man in a case of affirmative defense," be my guest!
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
OK, we can agree to disagree.
Believe it or not, I'm totally fine with that tonight. Can I buy you a "computer" beer or something? Promise I won't poison it.
grin2.gif
56.gif
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

Murder is an unlawful killing. By your definition the death penalty would allow murder.


In my jurisdiction, which is a death penalty jurisdiction, execution of a public duty is a statutory justification.

Thus, it would never be charged.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You do realize that we already have banned books (some from OZ) that are deemed propaganda and that we aren't allowed to read here due to this type of thinking.


Are you serious? What books are banned in the US now?





Well, aside from the last chapter of The Story of O ..

I think the list/site that mori provided is for domestic authored books. There are some that don't make it to our shores. One example: I was listening to the Jim Bohannon Show. He had an Oz guest who was comparing different "population management" dispositions. She said that it was covered in a book ..but the book was banned in the USA. Jim responded that it was deemed "propaganda" ..and hence was not allowed to be imported.

I keep seeing that Ingsoc emblem forming off in the fog.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
...

Murder is an unlawful killing. By your definition the death penalty would allow murder.

If you, after having killed an assailant who tried chibbing you, want to proclaim, "I have murdered this man in a case of affirmative defense," be my guest!
grin2.gif



Trust me, I wasn't sleeping through law school, and I've tried numerous cases in which we litigated affirmative defenses. Win is correct on this. The executioner carries out a lawful sentence, directed by law. And if you have killed someone in self defense, that's exactly what you do. You say, in effect, yes, I killed him; yes I intended to do it (premeditated); BUT yes, I had a legal reason for doing so (he was trying to kill me). If the jury buys your testimony and evidence, you win. If not, perhaps you get a date on the gurney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top