undefined | Better HN

0 pointswatwut4y ago0 comments

Czech Republic requires you to pass knowledge exam and health examination. The "go to buy semi automatic and have it in an hour at 18" just does not exists there.

Also, use of gun in self-defense is way less permissive then in USA. The stuff that pass as self defense in USA simply would not in Czech - you truly have to have no other choice.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

lliamander4y ago· 4 in thread

The requirements for self-defense in the U.S. are very simple and logical[1]:

1. You must be (or believe you are) in imminent danger of harm

2. Your response must be proportional to the threat

3. You must not be initial aggressor

4. Your decisions must be reasonable based on the information you had available to you

A few states also impose what they call a "duty to retreat", which basically means you must have exhausted all safe avenues of retreat before resorting to self-defense. Most states have removed such requirements because determining whether or not that criteria is met is really hard and doesn't really add much to the other four criteria.

Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.

[1] I am not a lawyer, but my knowledge of self-defense law comes from attorney Andrew Branca and his book Law of Self Defense

tluyben24y ago

The rittenhouse(?) case (which is used over here now to show how crazy Americans really are unfortunately) shows that this is a rather broad concept in the US (maybe depending on the state?).

lliamander4y ago

Rittenhouse was a classic example of justified self-defense. He used the minimal amount of force necessary at the last possible moment, all the while retreating and trying to peacefully disengage from his attackers.

In my experience people who argue it was unjustified usually are lacking some key facts (most of which were available the night of the riot).

watwutOP4y ago

Simple, logical and still more permissive. Especially interpretation of them can be quite permissive.

> Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.

First, gun heightens chance of someone dying. But yes, you can shoot to wound to stop attack. But second, there are special laws that say how and when you can use the gun itself - so legally the gun or not does matter.

lliamander4y ago

> First, gun heightens chance of someone dying

A gun is considered deadly force in the US, and thus would only be justified when facing a deadly force threat.

> But yes, you can shoot to wound to stop attack.

That is not really a thing. Often people don't die when they are shot, but you can't realistically have a goal of only shooting to wound. You shoot to stop the attack.

> But second, there are special laws that say how and when you can use the gun itself - so legally the gun or not does matter.

Can you give some examples? It's not obvious to me what such laws would be or why they would be beneficial.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

lliamander4y ago· 4 in thread

The requirements for self-defense in the U.S. are very simple and logical[1]:

1. You must be (or believe you are) in imminent danger of harm

2. Your response must be proportional to the threat

3. You must not be initial aggressor

4. Your decisions must be reasonable based on the information you had available to you

Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.

[1] I am not a lawyer, but my knowledge of self-defense law comes from attorney Andrew Branca and his book Law of Self Defense

tluyben24y ago

The rittenhouse(?) case (which is used over here now to show how crazy Americans really are unfortunately) shows that this is a rather broad concept in the US (maybe depending on the state?).

lliamander4y ago

In my experience people who argue it was unjustified usually are lacking some key facts (most of which were available the night of the riot).

watwutOP4y ago

Simple, logical and still more permissive. Especially interpretation of them can be quite permissive.

> Whether a gun was used doesn't really matter: dead is dead. Using a gun doesn't make them more dead. If you were justified to use deadly force, then the means shouldn't really matter.

lliamander4y ago

> First, gun heightens chance of someone dying

A gun is considered deadly force in the US, and thus would only be justified when facing a deadly force threat.

> But yes, you can shoot to wound to stop attack.

That is not really a thing. Often people don't die when they are shot, but you can't realistically have a goal of only shooting to wound. You shoot to stop the attack.

> But second, there are special laws that say how and when you can use the gun itself - so legally the gun or not does matter.

Can you give some examples? It's not obvious to me what such laws would be or why they would be beneficial.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse