|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam.
Mexico has probably the strictest gun laws in the world. There are around 6,000 legally owned private firearms in the entire country yet it has far and away the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Point is that gun control laws have little to do with controlling gun violence.
|
On December 16 2012 14:03 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. Mexico has probably the strictest gun laws in the world. There are around 6,000 legally owned private firearms in the entire country yet it has far and away the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Point is that gun control laws have little to do with controlling gun violence.
Mexico is where the bad guys rule and the good people unable to defend themselves and thus are victims.
|
On December 16 2012 14:02 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. /sigh your getting offtopic. I was making a point about how crime is handled- not how relgion is handled or woman's rights.
They cut off a hand for theft. When you have detractors like that, crime is less common. Therefore guns for self-defense would be less needed.
|
On December 16 2012 14:00 TMD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:37 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:34 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:30 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade? What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes. If you were going to mug someone, and they pulled out a grenade, you'd surely think twice. Are you trying to make some kind of point? Do average citizens really need assault rifles (MP-9, M-16 or19 or whatever) for 'home defense'? Unless you're confronted by a rival militia in some primitive land despute, there should be no need for firearms outside of hunting and maybe a precautionary hand-gun if you don't feel secure. I'm not sure on how easy it is in America to obtain a firearm that isn't a 30-6 or .22 or whatever hunting rifle, but up here just to go to a recreational firing range where you 'rent' a hand-gun and buy ammo for use in target practise, requires an instant computer-based police/criminal record check. (off-topic: don't fire off a .357 with your feet squared with your shoulders. I tried it even after )
No, in a home defense situation 00buck on a home defense shotgun which hold usually 8 rounds is fine. When you're out of the home a handgun is obviously needed. I have no opinion really on high caliber semi auto rifles (.223 usually) because the truth is hand guns are just as effective in mass shootings especially considering their size.
|
On December 16 2012 14:03 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. Mexico has probably the strictest gun laws in the world. There are around 6,000 legally owned private firearms in the entire country yet it has far and away the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Point is that gun control laws have little to do with controlling gun violence.
That would be true if there was no correlation between gun ownership and homicide.
Mexico, and Estonia aside, there is a link between homicide and gun ownership.
Source
|
On December 16 2012 14:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:02 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. /sigh your getting offtopic. I was making a point about how crime is handled- not how relgion is handled or woman's rights. They cut off a hand for theft. When you have detractors like that, crime is less common. Therefore guns for self-defense would be less needed.
I completly agree.
|
On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me.
I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later.
|
You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia.
Exactly. Cut off their feet, they'll never do it again.
|
Isn't your point about the punishment of crimes in Saudi Arabia kind of self-defeating?? You are saying that the stricter the retaliation (which in SA comes from direct implementation of stricter laws instead of leaving it to the citizens to figure it out themselves) the less the delinquency. Actually, this logic implies that the stricter the policy on gun ownership and use, the less rampant gun violence there might be.
|
On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:
[quote]
1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense.
The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm.
If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others.
2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E)
I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later.
Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
|
On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him?
Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you.
Lol, you funny guy :D
|
On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him?
Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
I value the criminals life more than I do a fish's life, What reason do you have for me to regard the fetus's life any more than that of a fish's?
|
On December 16 2012 14:13 bluemanrocks wrote:
Isn't your point about the punishment of crimes in Saudi Arabia kind of self-defeating?? You are saying that the stricter the retaliation (which in SA comes from direct implementation of stricter laws instead of leaving it to the citizens to figure it out themselves) the less the delinquency. Actually, this logic implies that the stricter the policy on gun ownership and use, the less rampant gun violence there might be.
Not quite tohugh I do see where your trying to come from.
Guns are used since our goverment can not stop crime-by putting in place deterents (not saying we should cut off peoples hands for stealing, but the idea of the strictness is what I'm talking about)
When criminals are no longer a threat to our society, you won't need gun laws- I will jsut buy few guns--if any at all.
It is because I feel threatened (again I was robbed in real life, and a gun mitigated that situation very quickly as I posted above) that I own weapons to protect myself, my family, my community.
So the logic does not imply a pro gun regulation, rather the logic would lead us to solving the need for the guns.
Again, crime doens't stop cause guns arn't there. Crime stops because criminals don't commit the unlawful acts.
Gotta crawl before you can walk.
|
On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him?
Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all.
|
On December 16 2012 14:06 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:03 Mallard86 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. Mexico has probably the strictest gun laws in the world. There are around 6,000 legally owned private firearms in the entire country yet it has far and away the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Point is that gun control laws have little to do with controlling gun violence. That would be true if there was no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. Mexico, and Estonia aside, there is a link between homicide and gun ownership. Source
You find the same thing that I posted holds true in the US. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. Didnt help the school shootings. Washington DC has some of the highest gun violence rates in the country yet its strict gun control laws which even the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional has done nothing to curb the violence. Its often the case that gun control comes around when gun violence gets high but just often you find that the gun control does little to stop the violence and that it is a combination of other factors that really stops most violence.
|
On December 16 2012 14:20 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:06 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 14:03 Mallard86 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:00 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:54 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that. Criminals can not be tolerated. I tend not to use hollywood material when discussing serious issues but this one is just too good. "Criminals thrive On the indulgence of society's understanding." You know what the crime rate is in Saudi Arabia? Next to nothing, you know why? They don't put up with criminals. You don't punish/deter criminals and they will grow like weeds. Steal- lose a hand. People tend not to steal in Saudi Arabia. They also don't allow women to vote, or until recently, drive. They also don't allow you to choose your own religion, unless it's Islam. Mexico has probably the strictest gun laws in the world. There are around 6,000 legally owned private firearms in the entire country yet it has far and away the highest rates of gun violence in the world. Point is that gun control laws have little to do with controlling gun violence. That would be true if there was no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. Mexico, and Estonia aside, there is a link between homicide and gun ownership. Source You find the same thing that I posted holds true in the US. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. Didnt help the school shootings. Washington DC has some of the highest gun violence rates in the country yet its strict gun control laws which even the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional has done nothing to curb the violence. Its often the case that gun control comes around when gun violence gets high but just often you find that the gun control does little to stop the violence and that it is a combination of other factors that really stops most violence.
aww beat me to it.
|
On December 16 2012 14:16 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid.
You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. I value the criminals life more than I do a fish's life, What reason do you have for me to regard the fetus's life any more than that of a fish's?
You're right. A fish has dreams and hopes too and family, friends etc.
|
On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him?
Know what would be better? if no one had to die. What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid. You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
Always amuses me when Americans believe society will implode because of abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. It's like they wilfully block out all knowledge of the outside world.
|
On December 16 2012 14:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid.
You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. Always amuses me when Americans believe society will implode because of abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. It's like they wilfully block out all knowledge of the outside world.
What does any of that have to do with our current discussion?
|
On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:52 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:46 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:18 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid.
You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad. Even if he stole your money, those are just possessions, not lives. lives are irreplacable, and you only get 1 of them. Trying to mug you isnt worthy of a death sentence. Your logic is backwards. I'm curious, are you pro life or pro choice? I know it's off topic but I just want to see your answer. pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else. Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all.
Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time?
Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
