EPTSamurai Sword kills Thief - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
arcology
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
shidonu
United States50 Posts
On September 17 2009 01:20 tYsopz wrote: If everyone's life is not worth the same, then exactly what factors will determine the value of someone's life? Their cash flow? Their IQ? This reasoning leads to no good end. Their deeds. And also, @Hot_bid, if you were a the burglar and desperately depended on stealing to make a living, would you not make sure to be armed and at the ready if you were expecting to be greeted with guns? All statistics prove that people arming themselves with gun will only cause more violent crime and people shooting each other. This is exactly why Obama tried to get a handgun ban through. All statistics show increased gun laws lead to increased crime. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On September 16 2009 19:04 Brett wrote: Answer: He went into the room with a fucking weapon. People against his actions aren't necessarily idiots. Have a bloody think... I think a better phrasing for your position would be "What the student did was stupid" instead of "What the student did was wrong." I think most people are perfectly fine with accepting the opinion that a few material things are not worth confronting someone over, but nobody on our side of the debate is going to accept the position that it's "wrong" to confront someone in their house that is stealing their possessions if they choose to take that risk. An armed citizen should have the right to uphold the law in his own home instead of having to pick up a phone and call other armed citizens and wait for them to do it for him. also don't understand why people keep repeating "If thief had a gun studen would have been killed." Isn't that incredibly obvious? | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
| ||
|
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
I would be very dissapointed if the kid had to do anything, in fact, he should get some therapy paid for by the gov't for trauma that he has for killing someone. | ||
|
kOre
Canada3642 Posts
| ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
On September 17 2009 01:54 arcology wrote: He didn't mean to kill him, sometimes you just roll a 20 Maybe he did? I wouldn't mind, another person robbed and who knows eventually maybe someone killed as a result of this dirtbag criminal walking the streets. There's sick fucks out there, ever read the story of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom? Its disturbing as all hell. Point is there are wicked people out there, they made their choice, he made his. People die in this world, the bg died sooner than he'd of liked because of the path he chose. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 17 2009 03:02 BlackJack wrote: I think a better phrasing for your position would be "What the student did was stupid" instead of "What the student did was wrong." I think most people are perfectly fine with accepting the opinion that a few material things are not worth confronting someone over, but nobody on our side of the debate is going to accept the position that it's "wrong" to confront someone in their house that is stealing their possessions if they choose to take that risk. An armed citizen should have the right to uphold the law in his own home instead of having to pick up a phone and call other armed citizens and wait for them to do it for him. also don't understand why people keep repeating "If thief had a gun studen would have been killed." Isn't that incredibly obvious? They repeat that because it's annoying to hear "zomg i'd kill whoever entered my house, go go samurai student! you are awesome!" when in reality the student had a death wish by going down there with a sword. he shouldn't be convicted, he got lucky and killed some trash -- good for him. | ||
|
Ghost151
United States290 Posts
On September 17 2009 01:54 arcology wrote: He didn't mean to kill him, sometimes you just roll a 20 haha win. I can't believe people would defend the point that killing the burglar in self-defense is wrong. It's idiocy to suggest that can't protect your own life because of the law. You wanna talk about justifying the action of killing, well that is not the point. It's irrelevant if it's justified or not, because you can place a sure bet that the asshole robbing him would have done something to the kid, based on his record alone, if he just laid down and took it like you all suggest. I mean come on, he pulled a fucking gun on an officer when approached? are you kidding me?!? You really think this guy would have just run off when the kid came in there or that he wasn't going to be violent? It's not like the kid hunted the guy down like Rambo with a blade. the thief obviously stayed to fight of his own volition. The man was garbage anyway. Actions speak volumes, and the actions of his life prior to that point show he was nothing but a piece of shit. ... On September 17 2009 02:47 shidonu wrote: Their deeds. All statistics show increased gun laws lead to increased crime. This stark generalization isn't true, obviously, but there is pretty damning evidence to be found that gun laws only make the populace less safe. You take away a law-abiding citizens right to defend himself and all you have is sheep for those who don't play by the rules. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
| ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this? So does Japan -- where guns are illegal. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On September 17 2009 04:42 eMbrace wrote: So does Japan -- where guns are illegal. precisely my point whether or not you legalize guns doesn't matter. crime happens because of culture and income disparities, not weapons. Consider how japan has lots and lots of gratuitous sexual and violent things in its culture. Yet its crime rate is low, precisely because there are so many outs for people to indulge in whatever disturbing thing they're into. In America, on the other hand, not only are there not that many outs, but its also economically different. Banning guns has no effect on crime. It only hurts industry to ban guns. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 17 2009 04:47 Caller wrote: precisely my point whether or not you legalize guns doesn't matter. crime happens because of culture and income disparities, not weapons. Consider how japan has lots and lots of gratuitous sexual and violent things in its culture. Yet its crime rate is low, precisely because there are so many outs for people to indulge in whatever disturbing thing they're into. In America, on the other hand, not only are there not that many outs, but its also economically different. Banning guns has no effect on crime. It only hurts industry to ban guns. i agree guns don't relate to crime, that's why i brought Japan up. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 17 2009 04:41 Caller wrote: Everybody in Switzerland is required to have an assault rifle in their home for militia purposes. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What's this? if this is true. this is some pretty delicious irony. i mean switzerland + militia = ????? | ||
|
Triple7
United States656 Posts
| ||
|
dnosrc
Germany454 Posts
In my opinion more guns dont decrease crime. You have to fight the reasons for crime eg poverty to reduce crime. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance. The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not. And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood. | ||
|
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On September 17 2009 05:12 Klockan3 wrote: I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance. The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not. And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood. It wouldn't make much of a difference if he swung and cut his head off or if he swung and cut his hand off. If he was being attacked, self-defense is self-defense regardless of how lethal it is. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36362 Posts
On September 17 2009 05:12 Klockan3 wrote: I read it like that at first too and wondered why people thought that it wasn't excessive force. But the article actually says that the hand was almost severed, otherwise the guy would had gone to jail 100% chance. The deal is that neighbours heard terrified screams, that wouldn't had happened with a decapitation and this his story wouldn't had hold up. Also decapitating someone attacking you with bare hands is excessive force for sure, while just cutting his hand is not. And you can save people who have lost their hands, you just have to tie something really really hard around the arm and then put a lot of cloth before the opening of the arm to save the blood. so if someone is attacking you, you have to cut him just enough with a sword? or swing the bat just hard enough to break bones but not cripple him? do you realize how ridiculous an idea this is? why not argue that any physical contact is excessive force, you should just talk to him and convince him to leave and surrender to the police. its 100% NOT excessive force to cut off a guy's hand who is attacking you. its not even excessive force if you cut off his head. excessive force is if you subdue him, tie him up, and stab him. or if hes running away from you and you shoot him in the back. but if the guy is rushing at you after breaking into your house, you can do whatever you want. there are a million factors that make it impossible for someone defending themselves to accurately use what you describe here as "not excessive" force. | ||
| ||
