Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[daviddem]

just providing this for informational purposes only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that? Look at the picture of the cowboy in the Burger King. Why does he not just wear a "SHOOT ME FIRST" t-shirt instead?

[Lukie]

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that? Look at the picture of the cowboy in the Burger King. Why does he not just wear a "SHOOT ME FIRST" t-shirt instead?

Yeah I never really understood it either. I think it is a silly idea.

[spoonitnow]

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that?

What's the purpose of any of our rights? You don't need an explanation to exercise them.

And why would anyone want to shoot the guy?

[daviddem]

What's the purpose of any of our rights? You don't need an explanation to exercise them.

And why would anyone want to shoot the guy?

Do you really think that because something is written into law, it is not wrong, dumb or obsolete? Take a tour of dumblaws.com or http://list25.com/the-25-craziest-laws-ever/3/

Women once did not have the right of vote
Alcohol was once illegal
It was once legal to owe slaves
Women once were not allowed to wear trousers
Human sacrifice used to be legal
Practicing a different religion used to be (and still is in some countries) punishable by death
In some countries women:
- can't drive
- can't go out of their house without a male relative
- have to wear full face and body wear outside their house
- are not allowed to go to school
- ...

If you ask me, that 2nd amendment of yours is largely obsolete and misinterpreted and in general its current interpretation and application does you more harm than good.

As for the Burger King cowboy, how don't you see why a mass murderer or armed robbers would want to get him first? How don't you see how this guy with his gun could make things infinitely worse for himself and the general public in case of an armed robbery in the Burger King where the robbers were hoping to get in and out with the money without firing a shot?

[spoonitnow]

(Some laws are bad.)

As for the Burger King cowboy, how don't you see why a mass murderer or armed robbers would want to get him first? How don't you see how this guy with his gun could make things infinitely worse for himself and the general public in case of an armed robbery in the Burger King where the robbers were hoping to get in and out with the money without firing a shot?

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

[daviddem]

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

[spoonitnow]

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

Also, women should not be allowed to vote, but that's a topic for another time.

[daviddem]

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.