|
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. |
United States24768 Posts
On October 12 2015 06:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 06:05 micronesia wrote:
While I'm not going to say killing the armed robber was the ideal ending to that affair, you have to consider more than just how much would have been stolen in the form of cash and valuables before the robber fled. If he gets in, takes people's stuff, and gets out uncontested, it is more likely that the same thing will happen to some of those customers in the future by the same or a different robber because the culture is being perpetuated that you can rob large groups of people at gunpoint whenever a cop isn't around. This would be true if one had little to no faith in the ability of police to respond to a well-witnessed crime committed in public. Besides, the logic works both ways. Those drawn towards acts of armed robbery will have their trigger fingers made all the itchier if they think a random self-appointed hero is gonna draw on them. The game of predicting where deterrent effects will manifest is not an easy one, but I'd prefer one with less guns rather than more. The alternative is a society in which property and "stuff" is considered valuable enough to warrant the taking of another's life without any sort of process of justice.
Actually I agree with you... you have to consider the effectiveness of police, too, in response to situations like these. I'm not saying this is proof that we need more guns or anything like that... just that it's not really fair to try to balance the guy's life strictly against the value of the cash he stole in that one session, when there is much more at play.
|
@ Incognoto: I and others have already argued those points, back then you answered that you find it unacceptable that we want to take the right of other peoples away to defend themselves. After some more pages i got the feeling your argument went more and more away from the right to defend your self to just the right to have a right, all those slogans against the NSA and governments taking away the freedom and such.
So, to make things a bit more clear, here are my arguments against the current american system.
1) Guns don't protect people, guns kill people. Having a society with more guns then people means every crime escalates more quickly resulting in more deaths. By reducing the number of available guns, you a) make it harder for someone determined, who needs one for his criminal intention, to obtain the gun. b) You deter people whe are not determined because a gun makes things much easier.
Both a) and b) reduce the amount of violent crimes but come at the price of the right of the individual. It reduces the perceived safety of the indivual and in very few cases civilian guns can protect other civilans from harm. At this point i point to England, France, Germany and other equally developed countries with strict regulations and state that those have lower murder rates, so i assume that the american rate would go down as well and therefore the pros outweigh the cons. Banning guns entirely would cause a small civil war though, so going that route is not possible.
2) Giving a citizen the right to kill someone over property is just wrong. A legislation that allows you to kill someone because he trespassed/broke into your property is murder in my opinion.
3) People perceive threats very differently. If your only response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm is to shoot the person, you are essentially punishing every violence crime with death on the assumption it could have escalated. Societies usually don't give the same punishments for intention and actual deed. The police can't just assasinate someone who enters a bank with an AK47 as well. Why is an untrained civilian allowed?
So i would abolish the stand your ground laws, i would prohibit assault weapons and i would only sell registered guns after a set period of time (2 weeks after buying or something) to give everyone time to cool down.
|
"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028252
So while causation isn't clear, there is a correlation. Personally, you can do what you want in the United States, just keep it there.
|
On October 12 2015 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote:On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: Armed Citizen Shoots And Kills Waffle House Robber
A Waffle House customer with a legally concealed weapon saved the day by shooting an armed robber at a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina.
The customer, who remains unidentified, opened fire on the armed suspect around 5 a.m. Saturday morning, according to The Post and Courier. The suspect, who police have also not named, was rushed to the hospital where he died from his wounds.
The customer’s decision to use force drew praise from employees. “He saved us, that’s what he did,” a Waffle House employee said.
One police officer on the scene speaking on the condition of anonymity said the customer’s actions are an example of how guns in the right hands can save people, saying, “It’s says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
“No one was hurt, which is the best part. No one was injured – besides the suspect,” Waffle House Division Manager Brandon Rogers said. ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. I'd rather have death be a last resort in general, especially since there's absolutely zero context about who he is and what his background is.
The implication being you feel there are circumstances where he could have been justified, or that it would have lessened the severity of the crime?
And honestly, any time guns are involved, you're already at the last resort. There's really no such thing as shooting to injure with a gun.
On October 12 2015 02:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote:On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: Armed Citizen Shoots And Kills Waffle House Robber
A Waffle House customer with a legally concealed weapon saved the day by shooting an armed robber at a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina.
The customer, who remains unidentified, opened fire on the armed suspect around 5 a.m. Saturday morning, according to The Post and Courier. The suspect, who police have also not named, was rushed to the hospital where he died from his wounds.
The customer’s decision to use force drew praise from employees. “He saved us, that’s what he did,” a Waffle House employee said.
One police officer on the scene speaking on the condition of anonymity said the customer’s actions are an example of how guns in the right hands can save people, saying, “It’s says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
“No one was hurt, which is the best part. No one was injured – besides the suspect,” Waffle House Division Manager Brandon Rogers said. ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. That you don't see anything wrong with the murder of an armed robber who inflicted no injuries on anyone speaks volumes. Thank God that the concealed carrier saved Waffle House's cashbox.
Thank God we have people like you to bleed their hearts out for criminals. Otherwise we may actually have a society that values the victims of crimes over the perpetrators, heaven forbid!
On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal.
Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return.
|
On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 02:11 farvacola wrote:On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote:On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: Armed Citizen Shoots And Kills Waffle House Robber
A Waffle House customer with a legally concealed weapon saved the day by shooting an armed robber at a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina.
The customer, who remains unidentified, opened fire on the armed suspect around 5 a.m. Saturday morning, according to The Post and Courier. The suspect, who police have also not named, was rushed to the hospital where he died from his wounds.
The customer’s decision to use force drew praise from employees. “He saved us, that’s what he did,” a Waffle House employee said.
One police officer on the scene speaking on the condition of anonymity said the customer’s actions are an example of how guns in the right hands can save people, saying, “It’s says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
“No one was hurt, which is the best part. No one was injured – besides the suspect,” Waffle House Division Manager Brandon Rogers said. ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. That you don't see anything wrong with the murder of an armed robber who inflicted no injuries on anyone speaks volumes. Thank God that the concealed carrier saved Waffle House's cashbox. Thank God we have people like you to bleed their hearts out for criminals. Otherwise we may actually have a society that values the victims of crimes over the perpetrators, heaven forbid!
You really don't think there's anything wrong with that? I don't get why people see this as a succesful example of concealed gun carrying. If the guy hadn't been there there would have been no deaths and some money lost. I don't condone stealing or robbing or anything but you shoulnd't have to pay with your life for taking stuff
|
We can't stop death over a couple hundred dollars until we can stop people from risking there lives for a couple hundred dollars.
|
Indeed. A reasonable social security system would go a long way in helping with that problem.
|
Brr, clicking Quote instead of Edit way too often with the new design.
|
On October 12 2015 07:07 MoonfireSpam wrote:"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028252So while causation isn't clear, there is a correlation. Personally, you can do what you want in the United States, just keep it there.
Please do some research or actually read the research you are posting. Homicides also includes suicides, and a disproportionate amount of said stats are made up of suicides. If you look at statistics related to firearm related crimes, you'll find that states with the most lax laws regarding firearms and states with high amount of firearms per population tend to have lower firearm related crimes than other areas, while states/cities with extremely tough gun restrictions have very high firearm related crimes.
There are of course exceptions like the state of Louisiana which has very lax gun laws and an insane amount of violent firearm related crimes, however the issue is really poverty in that state more than anything. There's alot of issues revolving around guns in general, so don't try and make it out as black and white.
|
On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote:On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: Armed Citizen Shoots And Kills Waffle House Robber
A Waffle House customer with a legally concealed weapon saved the day by shooting an armed robber at a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina.
The customer, who remains unidentified, opened fire on the armed suspect around 5 a.m. Saturday morning, according to The Post and Courier. The suspect, who police have also not named, was rushed to the hospital where he died from his wounds.
The customer’s decision to use force drew praise from employees. “He saved us, that’s what he did,” a Waffle House employee said.
One police officer on the scene speaking on the condition of anonymity said the customer’s actions are an example of how guns in the right hands can save people, saying, “It’s says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.”
“No one was hurt, which is the best part. No one was injured – besides the suspect,” Waffle House Division Manager Brandon Rogers said. ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. I'd rather have death be a last resort in general, especially since there's absolutely zero context about who he is and what his background is. The implication being you feel there are circumstances where he could have been justified, or that it would have lessened the severity of the crime? And honestly, any time guns are involved, you're already at the last resort. There's really no such thing as shooting to injure with a gun.
I'm not trying to trivialize the crime or the possible danger that the customers may have been in (although for what it's worth, I haven't found any evidence that the armed robber had a gun as opposed to a knife or some other less deadly weapon). I'm not even saying that the customer who shot the robber didn't make the right move. I'm just saying that the final outcome- with a human dead instead of merely incapacitated- is less than ideal (even though he's a robber) because there may have been a chance that he could have been rehabilitated.
It's very simple and neat and tidy to just kill "bad guys" to reduce the number of bad things from happening, but I'd like to think that in many cases, there are important underlying reasons for those "bad guys" doing bad things, and they might be issues that could be resolved in other ways besides killing people. At least, we literally have no information about who the robber was. Not that I'm siding with the robber, but it could have been one of those moral dilemmas of robbing a store to pay for a necessity (food, drink, medicine, etc.) as opposed to some un-nuanced "Hey I'm just a bad guy doing bad things to good people for no reason and so I deserve to die".
|
On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return.
Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance 
|
On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance
You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol.
|
On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal.
If only the robber felt the same way, maybe he wouldn't have risked his life to steal a few hundred dollars.
|
On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol.
So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-'
At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later.
|
United States43934 Posts
On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return.
True but we shouldn't take whatever the lowest in our society do as our benchmark of acceptable behavior. The argument that an armed robber thinks killing for money is okay and therefore it must be true is a pretty bad one. Or if your argument is that he deserved death for being willing to give out death then that's just a rewording of "but muuuuuuum, he started it!".
|
United States43934 Posts
On October 12 2015 10:23 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. If only the robber felt the same way, maybe he wouldn't have risked his life to steal a few hundred dollars.
We should aspire to not take our lessons on the value of human life from the lowest in society.
|
On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later.
That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there.
Tell you what, if an armed guy who isn't armed with a gun is ever attempting to rob the waffle house you're eating at, you feel free to attempt to subdue him. I'm perfectly content with letting someone else shoot the bastard.
On October 12 2015 10:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. True but we shouldn't take whatever the lowest in our society do as our benchmark of acceptable behavior. The argument that an armed robber thinks killing for money is okay and therefore it must be true is a pretty bad one. Or if your argument is that he deserved death for being willing to give out death then that's just a rewording of "but muuuuuuum, he started it!".
That's the argument. Threaten someone, and you should expect to have that threat thrown right back at you.
|
On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there.
Okay, you're not even trying anymore. Enjoy the rest of your night
|
On October 12 2015 10:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there. Okay, you're not even trying anymore. Enjoy the rest of your night
To be fair, you should have known I wasn't trying when I said he was likely armed with a waffle iron, haha.
Though you have to admit, claiming I intentionally fabricated facts when saying that armed=armed with a gun (which is the natural conclusion drawn by everyone else as well), is a really lame attempt at attacking me. You could have at least called me a heartless monster by saying I don't value everyone's life equally or something.
|
United States43934 Posts
On October 12 2015 10:50 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 10:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. Source please? I couldn't find that fact in any of the articles mentioning this. Thanks in advance You're right. Clearly he was actually armed with a waffle iron, lol. So in other words, you have no source and literally just made up the statement that "he was armed with a gun". He could have been armed with a knife or some other weapon... that's still considered "armed robbery" -.-' At least now I'm aware that you're not above completely fabricating "facts" to prove your point. It's an important point too. Besides the fact that many people are already disagreeing with you on how ideal it is to kill someone, if the armed robber didn't even have a gun, then it'd be far easier to subdue him instead of shooting/ killing first and shrugging later. That's an adorable attempt to attack my character, lol. You went all out there. Tell you what, if an armed guy who isn't armed with a gun is ever attempting to rob the waffle house you're eating at, you feel free to attempt to subdue him. I'm perfectly content with letting someone else shoot the bastard. Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 10:35 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On October 12 2015 06:01 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I'd rather nobody got killed in a Waffle House robbery than the perpetrator. Yeah I'm a bleeding heart liberal but I don't think people should die over a few hundred bucks. Obviously if he'd gotten the money and then lined up the patrons and started executing them, children first, then sure, shoot away. But I think human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, even if the person is a piece of shit. It's certainly not ideal. Given he was armed with a gun, it stands to reason he didn't share the same sentiment. Sure it's possible he had no intention of using it, but anytime you threaten an innocent person with death, you should expect nothing less in return. True but we shouldn't take whatever the lowest in our society do as our benchmark of acceptable behavior. The argument that an armed robber thinks killing for money is okay and therefore it must be true is a pretty bad one. Or if your argument is that he deserved death for being willing to give out death then that's just a rewording of "but muuuuuuum, he started it!". That's the argument. Threaten someone, and you should expect to have that threat thrown right back at you.
I believe that there is a higher morality than "be about as bad as the worst person in the room with you at any given time". And so do mothers everywhere. That's why "but muuuuuum, he started it" doesn't work. It doesn't matter what other people are doing, your actions are either moral or immoral on their own merits. Didn't you have parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
