| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 4:34pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1742
WPP: 168
Location: Somewhere fucking up the youth of America
|
|
| Trashcona wrote: | | I think UG totally missed my point. I agree with you 100% that if you or your family is in danger then you should be able to use whatever means necessary to protect them(I'm a homeowner and have a wife, son and dog aswell). But my point was, in this case, it totally doesn't seem like his life was ever in danger(based on what we heard in this story). That's the problem I have with this. |
I did miss your point, thank you for clarifying it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 4:36pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 140
WPP: 117
Location: Winnipeg
|
|
| UG wrote: | | Trashcona wrote: | | I think UG totally missed my point. I agree with you 100% that if you or your family is in danger then you should be able to use whatever means necessary to protect them(I'm a homeowner and have a wife, son and dog aswell). But my point was, in this case, it totally doesn't seem like his life was ever in danger(based on what we heard in this story). That's the problem I have with this. |
I did miss your point, thank you for clarifying it. |
Communicating over the intarwebs, it's fun!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 4:54pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 883
WPP: 135
Location: London, England.
|
|
We have the opposite problem in the UK you are allowed to use equal force if your life is in danger, not excessive force. Half the time if you break someones arm if they are robbing your house you end up having to pay them compensation.
"In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 5:33pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1764
WPP: 77
|
|
| Common sense fails so, so often. It's quite sad really. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 6:07pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1892
WPP: 109
Location: surfing in a room
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | oskar wrote: | | No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life. |
I read all too often of people being murdered, raped, beaten, and robbed in their homes. I'm surprised you havn't.
Castle doctrine laws (basically, laws that say you have an Absolute right to defend yourself in your home) do a lot of good. First, it's only fair to the victim. The victim is the person who's home is being broken into. They should not be put at the mercy of said robber, murderer, rapist, or whoever it may be. Sensible defense laws also serve as a great deterrant. Put it this way-- if you were a criminal, would you break into a home where somebody is likely to be armed and legally able to defend themselves? Now, say you are that same criminal, aren't you going to feel a whole lot more comfortable (and thus, more likely to carry out your crime) if you live in a strict anti-gun zone..... ? Obviously. I could go on and on with this.
| Quote: | | It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible. |
So a 230 pound rapist breaks into the home of a 100 pound female, she should politely ask him to leave and hope he complies? You're nuts.
| Quote: | | Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it. |
Lol, right. It's nice how you word that. 4 teenagers just chilling in my place. uninvited. could have knives in their pockets. could swarm and start beating me. Right, dude. |
I actually almost never read about people being murderered or raped at home (not counting the "woman kills her ex-husband stories) and our gun laws are far from liberal, in general you´re not allowed to own a gun and in case of self-defense there must be strong evidence that your life was at risk, otherwise you´re charged for manslaughter at least. Being allowed to kill people who COULD possibly threaten your life (how often does a b&e actually end in a killing or rape?) with a chance of less than 10% i would guess is not a solution of your nations problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 6:10pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 1486
WPP: 98
Location: on teh button... steelin ur blindz
|
|
| UG wrote: | I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this. I own a home. I have a wife. If somebody comes into my home without my permission I am going to assume that they are not there with good intentions. Are they there to steal my Oreo Cookies and Ritz Crackers, or are they there to shoot me, rape/kill my wife, then steal all of my stuff?
Is it a 100% "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of deal? No, I'll have to (quickly) analyze the situation and figure out if and how much danger I am in. I will then proceed from there, but in the heat of the moment don't think I won't protect my wife, myself, and my home with deadly force if I think it's warranted. |
You are putting your families lives in danger the moment you pull out the gun. Just let them go. Listen to officer Bob:
All that was on the line up until that point was your property. You just raised the stakes to your life and the life of your family to protect your property. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 6:14pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 777
WPP: 103
Location: mashing buttons
|
|
don't bring a knife to a gun fight
poor redskins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 6:23pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3545
WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
The kids broke into HIS NEIGHBOR's house.
Did anyone RTFA? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 6:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
LAME HUMOR THAT MAKES FISH LAUGH
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 8092
WPP: 75
Location: This room is a good place to be
|
|
| UG wrote: | | or are they there to shoot me, rape/kill my wife, then steal all of my stuff? |
What if they left all your stuff be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 7:02pm Post subject:
|
|
|
{NSFW - nipple}
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2186
WPP: 107
Location: The Loser's Lounge
|
|
| XTR1000 wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | oskar wrote: | | No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life. |
I read all too often of people being murdered, raped, beaten, and robbed in their homes. I'm surprised you havn't.
Castle doctrine laws (basically, laws that say you have an Absolute right to defend yourself in your home) do a lot of good. First, it's only fair to the victim. The victim is the person who's home is being broken into. They should not be put at the mercy of said robber, murderer, rapist, or whoever it may be. Sensible defense laws also serve as a great deterrant. Put it this way-- if you were a criminal, would you break into a home where somebody is likely to be armed and legally able to defend themselves? Now, say you are that same criminal, aren't you going to feel a whole lot more comfortable (and thus, more likely to carry out your crime) if you live in a strict anti-gun zone..... ? Obviously. I could go on and on with this.
| Quote: | | It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible. |
So a 230 pound rapist breaks into the home of a 100 pound female, she should politely ask him to leave and hope he complies? You're nuts.
| Quote: | | Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it. |
Lol, right. It's nice how you word that. 4 teenagers just chilling in my place. uninvited. could have knives in their pockets. could swarm and start beating me. Right, dude. |
I actually almost never read about people being murderered or raped at home (not counting the "woman kills her ex-husband stories) and our gun laws are far from liberal, in general you´re not allowed to own a gun and in case of self-defense there must be strong evidence that your life was at risk, otherwise you´re charged for manslaughter at least. Being allowed to kill people who COULD possibly threaten your life (how often does a b&e actually end in a killing or rape?) with a chance of less than 10% i would guess is not a solution of your nations problem. |
It's not about solving the nation's problems, it's about protecting yourself in your home. I think the states have way too strong of a gun culture and don't agree with a lot of their views on it. But I think someone shooting a potential rapist/killer WHO SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN HIS HOUSE isn't a bad thing. Sure it could be less than 10% of the time someone gets seriously hurt by the robber, that doesn't matter. It's the chance it could happen to you, and the fact that if he's going to put himself in league with people that do this stuff, he's going to have to face the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 7:03pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1742
WPP: 168
Location: Somewhere fucking up the youth of America
|
|
| swiggidy wrote: | The kids broke into HIS NEIGHBOR's house.
Did anyone RTFA? |
Two different cases. Read it again.
They broke into Gonzalez's trailer and which he was not in, apparently I missed that, but it was still his trailer. Either way the article does make the situation sound fucked up, and the boy probably shouldn't have lost his life over this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 7:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3545
WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
| UG wrote: | | Either way the article does make the situation sound fucked up, and the boy probably shouldn't have lost his life over this. | Totally agree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 7:21pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
| KoRnholio wrote: | | Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted. |
BOOOM! HEADSHOT!
agree 250% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 9:43pm Post subject:
|
|
|
11 OF DIAMONDS
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 4381
WPP: 117
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | | KoRnholio wrote: | | Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted. |
BOOOM! HEADSHOT!
agree 250% |
maybe we should start another gun restriction thread for the 5th time
I WONT LET YOU TAKE AWAY MY RIFLES I LIKE SHOOTIN UP DEM DEER YA HURR? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 10:24pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 777
WPP: 103
Location: mashing buttons
|
|
| the juice don't need no pansy ass gun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 11:24pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | | KoRnholio wrote: | | Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted. |
BOOOM! HEADSHOT!
agree 250% |
LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....
if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:01am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1764
WPP: 77
|
|
| will641 wrote: | LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....
if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts. |
Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:24am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1764
WPP: 77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:30am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7006
WPP: 71
Location: Pwnsylvania
|
|
| bunch of left-wing liberal propaganda beong flung around in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:36am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 441
WPP: 198
|
|
so long as people have guns, guns are needed to protect against those people. Say we no longer allow the sale of firearms. Who no longer has guns, the criminals or the law abiding citizens?
A more interesting correlation would be % of households with guns vs crime rate. An even more interesting correlation is that as the number of pirates decreases, the impact of global warming increases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:10am Post subject:
|
|
|
EAT BUGS
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 7834
WPP: 52
Location: trying to live
|
|
| KoRnholio wrote: | | will641 wrote: | LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....
if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts. |
Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun. |
the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:25am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 389
WPP: 156
Location: Finding my game
|
|
| After another school shooting here just last week I feel hardly impressed by ANYONE's so called right to bear arms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:29am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:37am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:39am Post subject:
|
|
|
EAT BUGS
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 7834
WPP: 52
Location: trying to live
|
|
YOU DONT GET IT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:41am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 3556
WPP: 112
Location: at your tables, calling your bets
|
|
| gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:46am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 3556
WPP: 112
Location: at your tables, calling your bets
|
|
This is one of the best movie scenes ever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:46am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| KoRnholio wrote: | | will641 wrote: | LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....
if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts. |
Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun. |
really? i dont have the numbers on hand, but im pretty sure the chances of you getting murdered in your home when someone is breaking in is >.01% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:48am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 441
WPP: 198
|
|
| mcatdog wrote: | | gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
this! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:51am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | mcatdog wrote: | | gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
this! |
and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:57am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| will641 wrote: | | JKDS wrote: | | mcatdog wrote: | | gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
this! |
and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat. |
I'm assuming there was no pun intended? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:00am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | will641 wrote: | | JKDS wrote: | | mcatdog wrote: | | gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
this! |
and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat. |
I'm assuming there was no pun intended? |
haha, no. i guess im just that good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:23am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 113
WPP: 152
Location: missoula, MT
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot. |
THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:19am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1892
WPP: 109
Location: surfing in a room
|
|
| mcatdog wrote: | | gabe wrote: | | the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue |
This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.
In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it. |
from the robbers perspective it is a simple cost-benefit analysis. most of them probably arent aware of it, but in fact they are comparing their expected gain with the possible loss, which could be jail or, in this case, being shot to death. a robbers ev decreases immensly, once being killed becomes a real possibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:28am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 822
WPP: 76
|
|
| DaddyDeez wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot. |
THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON |
No this is harsh.
Everyone does dumbass shit when they are younger.
You can't just assume that the kid is going to become some worthless waste of skin and never change his ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:50am Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 5869
WPP: 52
|
|
It's ok!
| Quote: | | Francisco Anguiano | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 7:05am Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
Given the fact that we indeed have guns, this man was rightfully found not guilty. The shooting was totally within his given rights.
The title is some serious lol. I guess it wouldn't be as catchy if it said "only in texas can a man shoot a teenager for a legitimate reason, and not get convicted." But the title speaks well for how euphemized our society has become, and how we've already lost to the system of manufacturing consent.
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.
You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 7:22am Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot. |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 7:27am Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| KoRnholio wrote: | | Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted. |
Although that is 100% true, you do of course realize that you are getting into totalitarian territory?
Are you proposing we divide the country into the gun-wielding elite class that reigns over the gunless proletariat? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 8:05am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
| Renton wrote: |
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.
You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial. |
Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 8:56am Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| Pelion wrote: | | Renton wrote: |
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.
You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial. |
Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime. |
Do you realize how many pages could be written about what constitutes "last resort," "vigilantism," and "revenge?" Those terms are subject to so much interpretation that they would never work as stipulations within a law.
Yeah in a perfect world that'd be great though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 9:42am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| JL wrote: | | DaddyDeez wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot. |
THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON |
No this is harsh.
Everyone does dumbass shit when they are younger.
You can't just assume that the kid is going to become some worthless waste of skin and never change his ways. |
I agree that it's harsh, but remember my premise: world population control has to start somewhere. It's not like this kid was going to win the Nobel Prize for curing cancer. His death is not really a great loss.
Moreover, not everyone gets a group of their friends and breaks into someone's house as a kid. If they're doing that when they're 13, what are they going to be doing when they're 15? 18? 25?
Of course it's possible he could turn his life around into something useful, but it's less likely than one of his peers who was home studying or something. That makes his death more +EV (or less -EV, whichever way you want to look at it) than the death of the hypothetical peer. That's why I'm not terribly upset about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 9:47am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 777
WPP: 103
Location: mashing buttons
|
|
some people like to shoot cans
like CANadiens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 10:31am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 441
WPP: 198
|
|
of course, i see now. Everyone that isnt contributing a huge amount to society should just be shot for any ridiculous reason. i've been so blind. Next time i'm cut off in traffic...watch out! And i know what ill say in court, ill say "well he wasnt contributing to society, he wasnt gonna cure cancer or anything" and then ill be found not guilty because that matters more than the fact that i just took away some guys right to live, which is pretty much the most important right we have.
Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? He is well within his rights to shoot someone so he can protect himself, but how exactly is he protecting himself from a guy with his back turned to him? This sounds more like a pissed off redneck who thinks its ok to just shoot people because they did something wrong as opposed to caring about his right to live and giving him a trial of some kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 10:42am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
| JKDS wrote: |
Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? |
Didnt you read anything? Thats was for population control. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 11:26am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 271
WPP: 159
Location: Sweden
|
|
| I think the best argument for guns isn't even mentioned yet. Guns are needed to overthrow government if it turns bad. I've never heard a good counter-argument to this. Most people seem to assume that their own government will be good for eternity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 11:40am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | of course, i see now. Everyone that isnt contributing a huge amount to society should just be shot for any ridiculous reason. i've been so blind. Next time i'm cut off in traffic...watch out! And i know what ill say in court, ill say "well he wasnt contributing to society, he wasnt gonna cure cancer or anything" and then ill be found not guilty because that matters more than the fact that i just took away some guys right to live, which is pretty much the most important right we have.
Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? He is well within his rights to shoot someone so he can protect himself, but how exactly is he protecting himself from a guy with his back turned to him? This sounds more like a pissed off redneck who thinks its ok to just shoot people because they did something wrong as opposed to caring about his right to live and giving him a trial of some kind. |
None of this post is anywhere close to anything I said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 11:48am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 1486
WPP: 98
Location: on teh button... steelin ur blindz
|
|
I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 11:50am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Pelion wrote: | what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.
Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted FTR $200 Freeroll at FullTilt on November 23rd
