|
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 October 12 2015 11:22 KwarK 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. 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: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?
You're misunderstanding a fundamental part of the argument, which is that killing the person that started it isn't bad to begin with. There's nothing morally wrong with killing someone who is a real threat to your continued survival. If you want to value their life higher than your own that's fine, but I won't.
As a side note, saying "Didn't you have parents?" is about as distasteful as you can get. I thought you were really against saying those kinds of things?
|
United States42691 Posts
This was never about self defence or killing a person who is a threat to your continued survival. That was never the argument.
The argument you made was that it's okay to kill someone who has, through the implications of their actions (such as bringing a gun to a Waffle House robbery), shown a disregard for human life. Not that it was okay to kill them in self defence but rather that it was okay to kill them in the defence of property as long as they had shown a disregard for human life. That their disregard for human life could then be projected back at them and used to argue that either their life is also not worth very much, and can be justifiably taken in defence of a few hundred dollars, or that they are a hypocrite.
This is school playground level logic. You can't go "well if they thought life was so valuable they wouldn't have had a gun, clearly they're a hypocrite who deserved to be shot". The punishment for hypocrisy isn't death. Just because they're showing disregard for life doesn't make it okay to end their life if there is no imminent threat.
Your attempt to change the scenario to one more defensible won't escape notice. There is no imminent threat in this scenario, just money at risk. Do you stand by "he started it" as a justification?
|
United States24682 Posts
I am trying to insert myself into a scenario like that (robber taking money from people at gunpoint at waffle house) and one thing comes to mind. If a criminal with a gun points it at me so that I will hand over money or whatever, is his finger on the trigger? What's to stop some other stimuli from causing the criminal to suddenly pull the trigger and accidentally shoot me? I guess the only way to verify if this is a legitimate threat or not is to try to look at statistics and see how often that actually happens relative to times when people are held at gunpoint in similar situations, but it's probably hard to find good data on that.
On the other hand, things could end up just as bad for me if some other customer shot the robber and THAT was the stimuli which got me shot. Either way, I feel like an experience where someone's pointing a gun at me is of a higher cost than simply the amount of money I fork over (assuming (s)he isn't apprehended with stolen property recovered).
|
For the record, it's also important to note that the Waffle House robber may not have even had a gun. There's no mention of him having a gun- merely that he had a weapon of some sort. So one could also consider the scenario where an attempted robber was wielding a knife or some other weapon instead of holding a gun, if that makes a difference in the approach.
|
United States42691 Posts
My argument was that in the ranking of potential outcomes I'd put "robbery is a success, robber gets away with $500, no one is harmed" above "robbery is a failure, random patron kills the robber, nobody else is harmed". Obviously both are more desirable than a patron or employee being harmed and if it were a situation in which either the robber or an innocent person were in danger then I would rather it were the robber who got shot but that wasn't what we were discussing. My original post, which killa_robot disagreed with, was that the robber escaping with a few hundred dollars is better than him being killed. His response, that you shouldn't value the life of someone whose actions show they don't value life, is playground morality where the standard of behaviour for the group is set by the worst.
|
On October 12 2015 11:38 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 11:22 KwarK wrote: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. 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: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? You're misunderstanding a fundamental part of the argument, which is that killing the person that started it isn't bad to begin with. There's nothing morally wrong with killing someone who is a real threat to your continued survival. If you want to value their life higher than your own that's fine, but I won't. As a side note, saying "Didn't you have parents?" is about as distasteful as you can get. I thought you were really against saying those kinds of things?
wut.
please dont breed. this world doesnt need more people like you in it.
User was warned for this post
|
If the robber's actually attacking someone with a weapon, then a patron stepping in and killing them is justified.
If the robber convincingly threatens to shoot someone, then a patron stepping in and killing them should also be justified. They aren't required to let the robber shoot his target first before defending them.
|
On October 12 2015 14:03 Buckyman wrote:
If the robber's actually attacking someone with a weapon, then a patron stepping in and killing them is justified.
If the robber convincingly threatens to shoot someone, then a patron stepping in and killing them should also be justified. They aren't required to let the robber shoot his target first before defending them.
Neither of those necessarily happened (I'm not saying you're saying they did).
|
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations
|
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.
Sorry, but this is BS. To me, "Armed" does not mean "Has a gun". Here in Germany, an "armed" robber usually has a knife. If a guy actually has a gun, that is always mentioned. Thus, DPBs question for a source is absolutely legitimate. And your deflection of it is bad discussion practice. If everyone knew that he has a gun, it shouldn't be hard to find a source for that. Which you still haven't produced yet.
As for the rest of the argument, i find your way of thinking disgusting. If someone who is threatening someone elses life is killed in the protection of that life, that is not the best result, but acceptable. If someone who has a gun, but is not threatening someones life, is killed, that is not. You have a judiciary system for a reason. Vigilantism should not be any part of a civilized society. You seem to work off a hollywood justice system, where the best solution to any problem is for a hero to go in and shoot all the bad guys.
|
On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
It's because it's a world view in which criminals are something else than humans, something lesser. And so what you do to them doesn't matter.
|
I think that all the people who want to stop other people from having guns should be shot by the the people wanting guns, and all the people wanting guns should be given the electric chair. That would effectively resolve this debate.
|
On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations
Something tells me if we expanded the scope of the violence, you'd be ok with your Nation-State defending yourself and your society against other aggressive Nation-States. Scope it down, and you seem to lose this perspective on a local level. If you don't hold the prior view and hold self-defense in a more contemptible position than those who have initiated said violence, I also question your judgment and rationality. You talk of empathy, but you seem to only show remorse for the aggressive violently minded (I assume we're not talking about non-violent crimes here...), but not their victims. For me, I'm glad most of the rest of society does not hold your view - and lest we forget that the most heavily armed people we should be vigilantly on guard against is our own Governments who have traditionally, killed, maimed, and destroyed on vast scales which are in the grand schemes of things far worse.
|
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example
|
On October 12 2015 20:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations Something tells me if we expanded the scope of the violence, you'd be ok with your Nation-State defending yourself and your society against other aggressive Nation-States. Scope it down, and you seem to lose this perspective on a local level. If you don't hold the prior view and hold self-defense in a more contemptible position than those who have initiated said violence, I also question your judgment and rationality. You talk of empathy, but you seem to only show remorse for the aggressive violently minded (I assume we're not talking about non-violent crimes here...), but not their victims. For me, I'm glad most of the rest of society does not hold your view - and lest we forget that the most heavily armed people we should be vigilantly on guard against is our own Governments who have traditionally, killed, maimed, and destroyed on vast scales which are in the grand schemes of things far worse.
You heard it here, folks; if you see nothing wrong with shooting an armed robber who has hurt no one, you'd be similarly justified in shooting an IRS agent auditing a Waffle House.
|
On October 12 2015 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive. It's because it's a world view in which criminals are something else than humans, something lesser. And so what you do to them doesn't matter.
It's weird how breaking into a house is killing worthy while "small" cheating on the tax rent is something people joke about while having a meal. Both are illegal actions and both make you a criminal afaik.
|
On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example
Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense).
I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change.
|
On October 12 2015 20:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 14:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually scary how many people think its ok to take someones life simply because theyre committing a crime. zero compassion for others, inability to empathise, unwillingness to forgive.
and people wonder why our world is so messed up now.
people talking about their right to live and their right to bear arms should try and reconsider their views on life. consider your life and everything you have to be a privilege, and then maybe youd think twice about taking someone else's life. what makes you guys so special that you were given the RIGHT to live in a good home, with a family and a steady pay check when millions of people across the world cant get access to proper food. please explain to me what they did wrong aside from being born in those circumstances that they deserved to live in such terrible conditions.
so many people in this world dont understand the massive privilege they have just to be alive and healthy with a roof on top of their heads. so ungrateful for everything, which is why they keep asking for more on the basis that they are entitled to it. if people werent so self righteous and a little more grateful then the world would be a better place.
you get shot because some robber gets nervous and you decided not to kill him? well shit happens, at least you lived a good life, a much better life than a lot of people, and you can take solace in that you didnt take away the robber's 'right' to live. the robber will pay for his crime, and you may be dead but at least people will remember you as someone who didnt forsake his humanity. an inspiration to the younger generations Something tells me if we expanded the scope of the violence, you'd be ok with your Nation-State defending yourself and your society against other aggressive Nation-States. Scope it down, and you seem to lose this perspective on a local level. If you don't hold the prior view and hold self-defense in a more contemptible position than those who have initiated said violence, I also question your judgment and rationality. You talk of empathy, but you seem to only show remorse for the aggressive violently minded (I assume we're not talking about non-violent crimes here...), but not their victims. For me, I'm glad most of the rest of society does not hold your view - and lest we forget that the most heavily armed people we should be vigilantly on guard against is our own Governments who have traditionally, killed, maimed, and destroyed on vast scales which are in the grand schemes of things far worse.
Our government is an elected representation of the people.
If the government decided to take your guns, that wouldn't make them tyrants. The only tyrants would be the people who would, by their current admission, violently fight against the will of the people.
Our government is fundamentally a Republic. There is no tyranny, but there is plenty of perceived tyranny. And I don't give a shit what you perceive as tyranny, unless you're wielding a gun while you do it, in which case, you should probably be institutionalized.
None of the arguments for public gun-ownership make any sense. None of them. It hasn't made us safer, we have more gun violence. It isn't "fighting tyranny", it creates would-be tyrants.
Even if our government somehow became some tyrannical state, despite the fact that the essential construction of our Republic is not amendable (unlike some other things I can think of that are amendable)... A) Your gun isn't going to do shit to stop it B) Even if it did, you've just taken our government by force, and are likely a more real tyrant than the ones you overthrew.
Hey, we've seen armed-insurrections all around the globe in the past few decades. Populations with plenty of guns and anger. Syria would be an example. The Syrian rebels are more armed than even most gun-loving Americans, and the Syrian government has a fraction of the weaponry the U.S. government does.
So, how did that go for the Syrian rebels?
People who hold this fantasy about fighting their government need to read up on Gandhi. Not just because Gandhi was some benevolent idealist: but because he was actually successful. When it comes to political power, your gun means fuck-all. It's good for creating a violent mess and endangering your family. That's it.
|
On October 12 2015 20:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 20:31 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont know how you saw my pity towards aggressors to mean i dont care about the victims. of course i care, but im saying one shouldnt be so quick to judge criminals. so many of you justify killing every single criminal that presents a "threat" to you, but how many of them do you think really have the intention of hurting someone? theres a lot but definitely not all. some of these "criminals" may be doing what theyre doing because they really see it as their only choice of survival for whatever reason. even if this category of criminals is a minority, at least for their sake people should think twice. you could be killing a father of 3 whos struggling to pay his rent and his wife's medical bills.
also, this is the 21st century. you dont live in a communist country or a dictatorship, like so many of you have pointed out. 'defending' yourself against your government with militia is an ancient policy that can and should no longer happen. the only 'defending' you need to do against your government is the prevention of idiotic policies. if you cant stop your government from doing stupid shit then educate yourselves. if the citizens are for the most part ignorant and stupid then your government will reflect it. see australian government for example Since intent is inherently and by nature, subjective and personalized, that is a non-sequitur to the issue of self-defense. If one is presenting you with the very real likelihood of bodily harm, only the truly pacifist would call for "turning the cheek" to your aggressor, and only the truly insane would not only tell that person to not defend themselves, but that they're in the wrong for doing so. So, you're fine with criminals committing violent acts against the peaceful because of their own survival, but aren't just as retrospective of the victim doing likewise against their aggressor (fighting for their own survival in a very real sense). I'm not willing to put my life on the line for hypothetical what ifs and nebulous intention(s), and most sane people are not. I have a feeling once you experience "real life" as an older adult, your perspective may likely change.
like i said before, i consider life to be a privilege. if my life is cut short for whatever reason, then so be it. i will die knowing that i enjoyed my life while it lasted and i was lucky to have had everything i had until my point of death. i understand not everyone feels this way about their lives, but its how i feel about mine at the very least and to be honest i have no doubt in my mind that if more people adopted this perspective on life theyd probably live a lot happier lives.
im not fine with criminals committing violent acts on peaceful people. they should be punished for whatever crime they commit and they will spend the remainder/majority of their lives in prison regretting their actions. but that does not mean i dont pity them. for them to feel so desperate, lost, depressed and/or a combination of a whole bunch of negative emotions that they feel the need to be violent towards others in order to get what they need, it just shows that they have long lost their way. humans are supposed to be very compassionate creatures capable of doing so many good things. just look at how 2 or 3 year olds play with each other. compare yourself to the innocence of a child and you will also see that you have long lost your way if you have no trouble with the thought of killing someone else.
i note that my posts have digressed a bit from the topic, but its probably just because i believe gun control to just be the surface issue. a ban on guns or at the very least stricter regulations are the best short term method, but as long as we have people like some of our very own tlers in this world, we honestly cant do shit to change anything
|
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.
No. We're going going to spread the second amendment by military force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
