|
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 July 21 2012 05:22 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:14 Tarias wrote:On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. Unless all 3 of them also happen to have guns, which are so easily acquired, and decide it would be more profitable to just shoot you and your entire family before they rob your home, just because you pissed them of by firing into the air. The point is that the world would be a safer place if noone, including criminals, had guns. And in alot of countries this is actually the case. It would never work in the US because there are already way to many guns going around. This is one of the reasons gun control debates are so pointless, gun control is only effective if it has been in place for a very long time. What's the difference between all 3 of them shooting me and my family because they didn't like me firing in the air, or all 3 of them shooting me and my family because they didn't like me going down (3 to 1) swinging like a gorilla? I don't think you can answer that. Your argument appears to be, "the world would be safer if guns didn't exist." Well, we can't turn back the clock, man. Guns exist, nuclear bombs exist. Going forward, please.
I completely agree with you here though. Which is why I said the debate is pointless. Gun control will never work in the US, and will continue to work wonders in countries like the Netherlands.
|
On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs.
It's a tool designed to kill things. Yes, you can use it in other ways, but that doesn't change its original purpose. The thing with gun control in America is that they all share your mentality - guns are meant for defending oneself and ones family. The issue there is, if no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. In a world with only melee weapons, a bat would easily suffice to scare off intruders or to protect oneself, with the added benefit of that unless you beat them to death, most confrontations will only end with moderate injuries. However, due to guns existing and the current mentality of the US, they will always be an issue.
I also seriously doubt your example would progress like you claim it would. If you fired a shot into the air, and they didn't leave, then they either have balls of steel, or are also armed. If it's the later, you're going to get killed if you aim for their legs, if it's the former, then I'm sure one of the three would reach you before you could hit them all in the legs (assuming you're taking care not to hit any other part of their body). Not to mention I doubt you'd be calm enough to carefully aim for their legs, which are not the easiest targets to hit.
|
If we assume for a moment that every adult knows how to deal reasonably with firearms (which is obviously false), how do you make sure children do as well? How can you prevent them from accessing the weapons?
You wouldn't have mass murdering in high schools and shit if children couldn't get their hands on this stuff. Firearms take lives very easily and very quickly, and most of the time don't care if people start running for their life. Let's say a guy appears in a school with a knife in the hand, he won't kill as many people as with fucking automatic rifles and grenades...
That's a bit oversimplied and some pretty bad accounting logic, but that's true nonetheless.
|
On July 21 2012 05:23 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:19 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 05:17 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 04:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 03:03 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 02:55 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 21 2012 02:52 r.Evo wrote:
If someone can prove to me that guns have a peaceful purpose I'm all for letting everyone have it. Wait. Their purpose is to kill other people quite unlike a kitchen knife or an axe. Thinking about it that way makes me wonder why there's actually a discussion about it.
To protect yourself from criminals? The amount of people who shoot school shooters or people running amok in the head is surprisingly low.
Because criminals get them anyway? I'd say it will be harder if they're not everywhere. Besides that I doubt an arms race is really what people want to see. Because people go out and shoot to blow off steam. People hunt with them. Both of which are peaceful. Please get your head out of your ass. If i want to kill someone I could do it with a gun, a knife or even a fuckin pencil. And no it wouldn't be harder for them to get if they "weren't everywhere." As stated earlier these people do not own legally registered guns, meaning even if there were laws against gun ownership, they'd still have them. Many/most people who go on killing sprees actually do have legally registered guns. In countries with legal guns, it is much easier to get an illegal gun aswell, since there are many legal guns to steal. I could probably kill someone with a pencil, probably 2 with a knife, it would be damn hard to kill more than 10 without a gun though. I think the position that widespread gunownership does not increase murder rates and accidental deaths is untennable. The right to reasonable means of self-defense is a much better argument for legal firearms. In America, there's no such thing as gun registration. There is no central BAFTE database of firearms serial numbers and gun owners. It's been ruled that this is unconstitutional IIRC. Weapons which require a tax stamp are, however, registered and tracked. I don't get what you're trying to say about "illegal" gun. . . you mean stolen gun? Almost nothing is illegal in America with the right paperwork, including cannons, artillery, mortars, grenade launchers, RPGs, miniguns, etc. There are also people like me who have what's called a Curios and Relics FFL license which allows us to purchase firearms older than 50 years old in accordance with the GCA/NFA and have them shipped straight to our door. This is for the purpose of collection. I don't know if you've ever fired a gun, but it is insanely fun. Blowing off steam is a viable argument. Target shooting is very fun also. And did you know that it is also an Olympic sport? I've also read a lot of posts where people reference mass shootings and such. Most people keep or carry guns to protect their families and themselves. Many incidents happen at someone's residence where the victim may have been killed if it weren't for their gun. I think all states should be "shall issue" and adopt the Castle Doctrine. And class 3 weapons not require a tax stamp. The bad guys get full autos, why can't we? What I was trying to say is that if guns are illegal, criminals will have a harder time obtaining a gun illegally. This has been argued to death already and the evidence is heavily against you. See Chicago or New York, or the other countries where guns are illegal. I am interested in looking at this evidence, because it would be in conflict with my common sense. See the OP. This is why people carry, because you never know what's going to happen. I had to LOL about the guy getting shot in the ass. It also looked like the old man shot at the perp after he exited the premises and almost literally in the back. Good to know Florida justifies that (not being sarcastic).
There isnt any relevant evidence in the OP.
|
On July 21 2012 05:27 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. It's a tool designed to kill things. Yes, you can use it in other ways, but that doesn't change its original purpose. The thing with gun control in America is that they all share your mentality - guns are meant for defending oneself and ones family. The issue there is, if no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. In a world with only melee weapons, a bat would easily suffice to scare off intruders or to protect oneself, with the added benefit of that unless you beat them to death, most confrontations will only end with moderate injuries. However, due to guns existing and the current mentality of the US, they will always be an issue. I also seriously doubt your example would progress like you claim it would. If you fired a shot into the air, and they didn't leave, then they either have balls of steel, or are also armed. If it's the later, you're going to get killed if you aim for their legs, if it's the former, then I'm sure one of the three would reach you before you could hit them all in the legs (assuming you're taking care not to hit any other part of their body). Not to mention I doubt you'd be calm enough to carefully aim for their legs, which are not the easiest targets to hit.
That is just flat out wrong and ignorant.
Group of people breaking into my house where my kid sleeps and my family lives. I'm shooting them, I'm not asking myself, "What are they armed with, let me asses this situation".
One person with a knife threatens in any way my family, I will without hesitation shoot them. There doesn't need to be a gun for there to be a threat.
|
On July 21 2012 05:30 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:27 killa_robot wrote:On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. It's a tool designed to kill things. Yes, you can use it in other ways, but that doesn't change its original purpose. The thing with gun control in America is that they all share your mentality - guns are meant for defending oneself and ones family. The issue there is, if no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. In a world with only melee weapons, a bat would easily suffice to scare off intruders or to protect oneself, with the added benefit of that unless you beat them to death, most confrontations will only end with moderate injuries. However, due to guns existing and the current mentality of the US, they will always be an issue. I also seriously doubt your example would progress like you claim it would. If you fired a shot into the air, and they didn't leave, then they either have balls of steel, or are also armed. If it's the later, you're going to get killed if you aim for their legs, if it's the former, then I'm sure one of the three would reach you before you could hit them all in the legs (assuming you're taking care not to hit any other part of their body). Not to mention I doubt you'd be calm enough to carefully aim for their legs, which are not the easiest targets to hit. That is just flat out wrong and ignorant. Group of people breaking into my house where my kid sleeps and my family lives. I'm shooting them, I'm not asking myself, "What are they armed with, let me asses this situation". One person with a knife threatens in any way my family, I will without hesitation shoot them. There doesn't need to be a gun for there to be a threat.
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone.
|
Guns will never be controled in the US because the gun industry is just too big there, so a lot of people would lose their jobs if it would have to happen. I think it would be better if they would control it but no politician would have the balls to control the personal use of guns.
|
On July 21 2012 05:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:17 Focuspants wrote:On July 21 2012 05:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 05:03 HardlyNever wrote:On July 21 2012 05:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I can list another use: Shooting targets at a designated shooting range. You can do this with non-lethal weapons (or much less lethal). Correct. You can shoot at targets with other devices, even designated non-lethal devices, but not at all in the same way that you can with lethal firearms. I don't really see that as a strong argument. Cars are potentially lethal if misused. You can move from point A to B without a car -- but not in the same fashion, obviously. Congratulations, you just posted the most common (and also the WORST) argument in "defense" of your statement. You can kill someone with ANYTHING. You cant ban everything. The other sides point is that an assualt rifle is designed to KILL. It is its number 1 purpose. A cars, a knifes, a spoons, a cabbage patch dolls, etc... main purpose is not to kill someone/something with. If youre going to argue, at least use arguments that make sense. Cite your sources that semi-automatic, non-military, civilian AK-47 and other rifle models' primary use is to kill other people. I think you made that up, but correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know, they are intended to be used for hunting and target shooting, given the nature of the stores in which they are sold -- sporting goods stores. My reference to a car is a sound reference with regard to the post to which I was responding. No need to get emotional and congratulate me in a condescending fashion when you aren't even getting the brunt of what I said. Military weapons are intended to kill people. Civilian weapons are not, unless they are expressly advertised as "self defense" weapons. "Self defense" weapons typically include handguns, not long rifles.
Yes the AK-47 was primarily designed for people to hunt with, and for you to shoot watermelons in your backyard with! It definitely wasnt developed toward the end of the second world war by the Russians, and commisioned as their main rifle for military use.
Are you serious? Who do you think designs these weapons, and where do you think they first see use? If you said the military and in war, you are correct! Weapons are made for killing, or else they wouldnt be called weapons. They are made to destroy things. That is all. You are clearly not capable of realizing this.
|
On July 21 2012 05:27 ZenithM wrote:
If we assume for a moment that every adult knows how to deal reasonably with firearms (which is obviously false), how do you make sure children do as well? How can you prevent them from accessing the weapons?
You wouldn't have mass murdering in high schools and shit if children couldn't get their hands on this stuff. Firearms take lives very easily and very quickly, and most of the time don't care if people start running for their life. Let's say a guy appears in a school with a knife in the hand, he won't kill as many people as with fucking automatic rifles and grenades...
That's a bit oversimplied and some pretty bad accounting logic, but that's true nonetheless.
By being responsible.
If you are excersising your right as an american to own a weapon you should take the necessary steps to familiarize yourself with the weapon.
Take your wife with you to lessons about firearm training, learn how to properly use the tool you have. You can't back up your argument with the fact that some irresponsible people fuck up because they will do that no matter what. It's not the laws fault it's their own, and you cannot regulate stupidity.
|
I think having gun is bad because gun kill people
|
On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:30 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 05:27 killa_robot wrote:On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. It's a tool designed to kill things. Yes, you can use it in other ways, but that doesn't change its original purpose. The thing with gun control in America is that they all share your mentality - guns are meant for defending oneself and ones family. The issue there is, if no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. In a world with only melee weapons, a bat would easily suffice to scare off intruders or to protect oneself, with the added benefit of that unless you beat them to death, most confrontations will only end with moderate injuries. However, due to guns existing and the current mentality of the US, they will always be an issue. I also seriously doubt your example would progress like you claim it would. If you fired a shot into the air, and they didn't leave, then they either have balls of steel, or are also armed. If it's the later, you're going to get killed if you aim for their legs, if it's the former, then I'm sure one of the three would reach you before you could hit them all in the legs (assuming you're taking care not to hit any other part of their body). Not to mention I doubt you'd be calm enough to carefully aim for their legs, which are not the easiest targets to hit. That is just flat out wrong and ignorant. Group of people breaking into my house where my kid sleeps and my family lives. I'm shooting them, I'm not asking myself, "What are they armed with, let me asses this situation". One person with a knife threatens in any way my family, I will without hesitation shoot them. There doesn't need to be a gun for there to be a threat. No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone.
Yeah please do that instead. You should definitely asses the situation. From the sound of it you are not a very responsible gun owner.
|
On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:30 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 05:27 killa_robot wrote:On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. It's a tool designed to kill things. Yes, you can use it in other ways, but that doesn't change its original purpose. The thing with gun control in America is that they all share your mentality - guns are meant for defending oneself and ones family. The issue there is, if no one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. In a world with only melee weapons, a bat would easily suffice to scare off intruders or to protect oneself, with the added benefit of that unless you beat them to death, most confrontations will only end with moderate injuries. However, due to guns existing and the current mentality of the US, they will always be an issue. I also seriously doubt your example would progress like you claim it would. If you fired a shot into the air, and they didn't leave, then they either have balls of steel, or are also armed. If it's the later, you're going to get killed if you aim for their legs, if it's the former, then I'm sure one of the three would reach you before you could hit them all in the legs (assuming you're taking care not to hit any other part of their body). Not to mention I doubt you'd be calm enough to carefully aim for their legs, which are not the easiest targets to hit. That is just flat out wrong and ignorant. Group of people breaking into my house where my kid sleeps and my family lives. I'm shooting them, I'm not asking myself, "What are they armed with, let me asses this situation". One person with a knife threatens in any way my family, I will without hesitation shoot them. There doesn't need to be a gun for there to be a threat. No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone.
Well that's fine, you go ahead and do that. I seriously doubt you even have a family of your own, because if you did the LAST thing you do is trust in random strangers to protect them. That's your job, it's instinctual. You can say "Yea but the police are trained for that blah blah" doesn't change the fact that on a basic level "you" as their husband / father will feel responsible for their safety and take whatever measures you need to in order to protect them.
|
I think people should not be allowed to have guns. However, I live in america where it is allowed. As a result, we have people (like the posters in this thread) who own guns, thus threatening the entire society. Therefore, I feel a strong need to own a gun to protect myself from the above mentioned gun owners.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone.
Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive).
|
after the batman shooting... makes me believe even more that gun control should be more strictly regulated.
|
On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive).
I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff.
|
On July 21 2012 05:17 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 05:03 HardlyNever wrote:On July 21 2012 05:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I can list another use: Shooting targets at a designated shooting range. You can do this with non-lethal weapons (or much less lethal). Correct. You can shoot at targets with other devices, even designated non-lethal devices, but not at all in the same way that you can with lethal firearms. I don't really see that as a strong argument. Cars are potentially lethal if misused. You can move from point A to B without a car -- but not in the same fashion, obviously. Congratulations, you just posted the most common (and also the WORST) argument in "defense" of your position. You can kill someone with ANYTHING. You cant ban everything. The other sides point is that an assualt rifle is designed to KILL. It is its number 1 purpose. A cars, a knifes, a spoons, a cabbage patch dolls, etc... main purpose is not to kill someone/something with. If youre going to argue, at least use arguments that make sense.
If you can kill someone with anything it makes sense to have something available that is good at killing people who are trying to kill you. You bring up some tools that aren't designed to kill people. Is your justification for having a knife of some sort on hand for self defense related to the fact that the knife isn't designed to kill someone?
I don't see anything wrong with having something specifically designed to kill someone. As long as you aren't going out with the intention of killing someone a gun is a tool similar to a car or a knife. However, if someone tries to kill you with a knife you now have an advantage over them.
|
On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff.
Are you insinuating that you've heard it all? Are you willing to risk your familys life on that?
What it comes down to is the right for people to protect themselves and their family.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
I don't get it, intruders come into your house so your solution is to ask them to kindly wait until the police arrive?
|
On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff.
I can't be understanding you correctly. You haven't heard of armed robberies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
