|
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 06:06 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:53 Kahlgar wrote:
yeah the whole right to protect your home/family by shooting down fools seems so outdated and counterproductive given our modern society.
Not to mention that having the right to fire at will on some guy trying to steal your TV is really fked up. It's called the Castle Doctrine. Doesn't matter what the bad guys' intentions are, if they step foot in your dwelling without permission (or even property in some states), you have the right to use deadly force. It is very situational, but if someone was in my home in the middle of the night that didn't belong, my first assumption would be that he's there to do something bad. Whether it be to steal my TV or kill my family, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Yes but is the best course of action to hunt them down, rather then to gather up your family in one place and be prepared to fire at anyone who tries to open the door. It's seeking confrontation that is quite risky, rather then to secure an area and wait for confrontation.
|
On July 21 2012 06:07 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:03 Crushinator wrote:Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time'' Oh I'm sorry, how many innocent familys need to be brutally murdered before you lose the naive attitude?
More than 1 in 10 million for sure.
|
On July 21 2012 06:02 Felnarion wrote:
There are some dumb fucking people in this thread.
Three guys. IN YOUR HOUSE, at night. What, they're taking your TV, your family is sleeping in the other room, what, you're gonna run? You're gonna pour them a beer? Cook up some steaks? Even in a society where guns aren't allowed, there's still a very real life and death struggle that is about to occur.
As for Mr. West Wing. That statement is just completely false. Look up the real homicide rate, not the pretend one you saw on some ficticious TV show.
In terms of standing, Finland, France, and the Swiss, Canada, and Northern Ireland are all less than 10 ranks behind the US in terms of gun-related death rate.
yeah being French, i can tell you that the number of homicides by guns in France are in the low 100s per year.
Not far behind the US eh?
|
On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
I am always hesitant to post in these threads, but I am curious about this one.
I would like to pose a question - I always hear people claim that they should have the right to own guns to keep their family safe from the bad guys. I never understood this logic; if someone is threatening me with a gun, I personally would feel no less safe whether or not I had a gun myself. I have fired handguns and rifles before, so I know how to use them. What I mean is that if someone pulls a gun on me, then in most cases me pulling a gun back on them is going to make them MORE likely to shoot me. How does having your own gun and adding more guns to the mix make anyone safer?
If you are operating on the assumption that someone already has a gun pulled on you, then you are right, having a gun at your side probably won't make much difference.
|
On July 21 2012 06:03 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 05:58 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects.
People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars.
People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns.
2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns.
3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families.
4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it.
5th. Imagine this scenario:
Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead.
Same scenario: every single student is armed.
Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many.
In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted.
By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk.
People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws.
You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. Right, you can keep blindly defending the ideology behind gun laws, it won't change the fact that the US has more criminality that just about every single developed country where guns are banned. There are legitimate arguments against gun ownership. I'm afraid this isn't one of them. The reasons people commit crimes are far more complicated than a simplistic "because they owned this object." Go look up gun crime stats in the U.S compared to any other first world country.
The USA is one data point. A big damn data point, but still just one. There are many other aspects that are likely to come into play - ways in which the USA is starkly different than other countries, which cannot be eliminated as the primary cause.
|
So many Americans (and I say this as an American - from Texas, no less) have this macho complex about guns. They dream about shooting some criminal or being designated some "hero" by killing someone else. You see it all the time. They're looking for an opportunity to use their gun.
There was a shooting in my home town of Houston awhile ago with some similarities to the Trayvon Martin case. Some idiot saw his neighbor (not himself!) getting robbed and called the police. On the phone, before the robbers had left, the dispatcher said to the guy, knowing he was armed that "the police are on their way and will be there very soon, do not approach the suspect." Instead, the guy went outside and shot the criminals execution style right on the front lawn. It's barbaric.
To the above poster talking about AK-47s not being primarily used for killing people, please quit being so willfully ignorant. It's pathetic. If the gun lobby was in favor of safe use of automatic weapons, then they would be proposing solutions instead of trying to remove gun control and safety laws.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want an automatic weapon, it should be registered and held at a federally controlled shooting range, NEVER leave the premises, and all ammunition anywhere for any firearm should be serially numbered and bar coded. Would that affect your ability to go out and shoot some targets with your weapon? Absolutely not. Would it help solve a lot of crimes? Absolutely yes. But guess who's against it? The good ol' NRA.
|
On July 21 2012 06:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:07 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:03 Crushinator wrote:Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time'' Oh I'm sorry, how many innocent familys need to be brutally murdered before you lose the naive attitude? More than 1 in 10 million for sure.
Should tell that to the dead children.
"No sorry, your father should'nt have the right to own a gun and protect you , because not enough innocent children were murdered by psychopaths this year."
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On July 21 2012 06:09 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:02 Felnarion wrote:
There are some dumb fucking people in this thread.
Three guys. IN YOUR HOUSE, at night. What, they're taking your TV, your family is sleeping in the other room, what, you're gonna run? You're gonna pour them a beer? Cook up some steaks? Even in a society where guns aren't allowed, there's still a very real life and death struggle that is about to occur.
As for Mr. West Wing. That statement is just completely false. Look up the real homicide rate, not the pretend one you saw on some ficticious TV show.
In terms of standing, Finland, France, and the Swiss, Canada, and Northern Ireland are all less than 10 ranks behind the US in terms of gun-related death rate. yeah being French, i can tell you that the number of homicides by guns in France are in the low 100s per year. Not far behind the US eh?
Not to mention Northern Ireland has a special security situation
|
On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
I am always hesitant to post in these threads, but I am curious about this one.
I would like to pose a question - I always hear people claim that they should have the right to own guns to keep their family safe from the bad guys. I never understood this logic; if someone is threatening me with a gun, I personally would feel no less safe whether or not I had a gun myself. I have fired handguns and rifles before, so I know how to use them. What I mean is that if someone pulls a gun on me, then in most cases me pulling a gun back on them is going to make them MORE likely to shoot me. How does having your own gun and adding more guns to the mix make anyone safer?
because your scenario is so extreme and illogical, your took the reasoning for owning a gun out of the question.
obviously if there is a man staring at you with a gun pointed at ur face, grabbing for your gun is meaningless.
however hearing a window shatter and door open on the opposite side of your house, with your children asleep on that side of the house, will having a gun make you more able to defend your family than not having one?
what are you going to do if you dont and he does? call 911 and pray that he doesnt find you or ANYONE in your family for the next 15 mins u wait for cops to get there.
maybe you should try reasoning with him, people who break into peoples houses to steal/whatever are usually completely logical individuals.
also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership.
obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm.
Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.
every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check
|
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects.
People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars.
People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns.
2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns.
3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families.
4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it.
5th. Imagine this scenario:
Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead.
Same scenario: every single student is armed.
Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many.
In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted.
By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk.
People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws.
You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all.
I don't see why a random guy needs/has the right to own a gun. Outside of someone like a store owner who as at a high risk of armed robbery, why is a random dude allowed to buy 2 pistols, a shotgun, an assault rifle and extended magazines for these weapons, all without a background check? There will still be criminals with guns, but we'd stop hearing about some "weird kid" with no criminal record going on a rampage with a gun somewhere in the great ol' US of A every damn week. Apparantly this happened 19 miles away from Columbine? We're hardly talking about drive-by gangland shootings between the Crips and the Bloods here, its random nutters (often with no criminal background) who have a screw loose and legal access to tons of lethal hardware for no good reason.
Fully automatic assault rifles, shotguns, extended magazines? All in the name of self defense? Give me a fucking break there is NO good reason for some random guy being allowed to have such lethal weapons. What purpose is there in an assault rifle other than mowing down as many people as possible? You say that gun laws wouldn't make a difference here, if people were restricted to 1 pistol with a standard magazine size then things would surely be a bit different. Or would you rather that 200 people in the cinema just pull out their assault rifles and shotguns and turn it into a John Woo movie?
|
On July 21 2012 06:10 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:08 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 06:07 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:03 Crushinator wrote:Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time'' Oh I'm sorry, how many innocent familys need to be brutally murdered before you lose the naive attitude? More than 1 in 10 million for sure. Should tell that to the dead children.
What use woudl that be? They are dead.
|
On July 21 2012 05:53 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects.
People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars.
People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns.
2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns.
3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families.
4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it.
5th. Imagine this scenario:
Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead.
Same scenario: every single student is armed.
Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many.
In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted.
By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk.
People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws.
You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. Agreed. With point 4, thats what switzerland does. Everyone is a part of the "National Guard" (U.S equivalent).
Didn't an overenthusiastic bystander shoot an innocent civilian in the middle of the Gabrielle Giffords incident? I have a hard time seeing how arming everyone does anything except increase the possiblity of accidental shootings, or of escalating a street beef into a lethal gunfight.
|
Should people be allowed to own forks? knives? cars? anything with sharp edges? ovens? curling irons? matches? microwaves?
This discussion is similar to those. Should we trust people to do the right thing? Probably not, because there are the few that will ruin it for everyone. But with a gun, the only way to make sure you don't die to a gun is to be able to protect yourself. So if someone can get a gun regardless of regulations, shouldn't it make sense just to let everyone have guns?
If we had a machine that allowed us to make sure that guns would be prevented from being used or made, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, we live in our current reality and do not possess the technology to do so.
|
On July 21 2012 06:11 iAmiAnC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects.
People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars.
People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns.
2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns.
3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families.
4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it.
5th. Imagine this scenario:
Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead.
Same scenario: every single student is armed.
Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many.
In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted.
By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk.
People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws.
You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. I don't see why a random guy needs/has the right to own a gun. Outside of someone like a store owner who as at a high risk of armed robbery, why is a random dude allowed to buy 2 pistols, a shotgun, an assault rifle and extended magazines for these weapons, all without a background check? There will still be criminals with guns, but we'd stop hearing about some "weird kid" with no criminal record going on a rampage with a gun somewhere in the great ol' US of A every damn week. Apparantly this happened 19 miles away from Columbine? We're hardly talking about drive-by gangland shootings between the Crips and the Bloods here, its random nutters (often with no criminal background) who have a screw loose and legal access to tons of lethal hardware for no good reason.
he did have a background check done. again another liberal uninformed about current gun safety laws, and argues for them.
saying guns kill people is the same thing as saying your pencil is a dumbass and thats why u got a bad test score.
|
On July 21 2012 06:10 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:08 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 06:07 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:03 Crushinator wrote:Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time'' Oh I'm sorry, how many innocent familys need to be brutally murdered before you lose the naive attitude? More than 1 in 10 million for sure. Should tell that to the dead children. "No sorry, your father should'nt have the right to own a gun and protect you , because not enough innocent children were murdered by psychopaths this year."
clearly sense 1 is 1 too many
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/20-1
k now that with your logic i dismantled concealed carry i'll now dismantle firearms in the house
http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/protect_your_kids_from_guns.php
How many people must die in order to prevent the less often burial murder rape break in.
Really i don't mind guns, even guns in the house but you just make the shittiest comments i can't help but take the other side.
|
On July 21 2012 06:08 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:06 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:53 Kahlgar wrote:
yeah the whole right to protect your home/family by shooting down fools seems so outdated and counterproductive given our modern society.
Not to mention that having the right to fire at will on some guy trying to steal your TV is really fked up. It's called the Castle Doctrine. Doesn't matter what the bad guys' intentions are, if they step foot in your dwelling without permission (or even property in some states), you have the right to use deadly force. It is very situational, but if someone was in my home in the middle of the night that didn't belong, my first assumption would be that he's there to do something bad. Whether it be to steal my TV or kill my family, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Yes but is the best course of action to hunt them down, rather then to gather up your family in one place and be prepared to fire at anyone who tries to open the door. It's seeking confrontation that is quite risky, rather then to secure an area and wait for confrontation.
Never said or implied confronting the bad guy for the purpose of getting a shot of, or even at all. Also the confrontation is very situational. If I were in a two story house and heard some bumps in the night downstairs, I'd account for my family and not go looking for trouble. However, due to the layout of homes, there may not be a choice besides confrontation because as soon as you step out of your room, you may be in direct confrontation.
|
On July 21 2012 06:14 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:08 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:06 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:53 Kahlgar wrote:
yeah the whole right to protect your home/family by shooting down fools seems so outdated and counterproductive given our modern society.
Not to mention that having the right to fire at will on some guy trying to steal your TV is really fked up. It's called the Castle Doctrine. Doesn't matter what the bad guys' intentions are, if they step foot in your dwelling without permission (or even property in some states), you have the right to use deadly force. It is very situational, but if someone was in my home in the middle of the night that didn't belong, my first assumption would be that he's there to do something bad. Whether it be to steal my TV or kill my family, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Yes but is the best course of action to hunt them down, rather then to gather up your family in one place and be prepared to fire at anyone who tries to open the door. It's seeking confrontation that is quite risky, rather then to secure an area and wait for confrontation. Never said or implied confronting the bad guy for the purpose of getting a shot of, or even at all. Also the confrontation is very situational. If I were in a two story house and heard some bumps in the night downstairs, I'd account for my family and not go looking for trouble. However, due to the layout of homes, there may not be a choice besides confrontation because as soon as you step out of your room, you may be in direct confrontation.
Sorry but i was going on the context of the rest of the thread considering you're talking about tv and the guy before you talking about shooting people over the tv and killing him becuase he could come back for revenge.
|
On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:44 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:23 prochobo wrote: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. On July 21 2012 05:17 leo23 wrote:my hero 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). Holy shit, he should be in jail or something, some serious punishment He risked the lives of everyone in that room, and the lives of people outside, not only his own life. What if the guy he was shooting at turned around and started shooting back instead? Everyone in that place was just incredibly lucky that the guy reacted by running away, instead of trying to defend himself by either turning around and shooting, or shooting at anything behind him while running.. Not only did the old man start firing, he ran after them and kept shooting, even when they were outside, almost forcing him to shoot back to get him to stop running after them.. what the hell? he is not a hero, he's a fucking idiot, he was lucky that they reacted by running and ONLY running for that matter, nothing else. That video is not a reason for allowing guns, it's a reason NOT to. They were stealing cash, they had no reason to shoot until they got shot at. Comission of a felony. Check. Life in danger. Check. Shoot the bastard. You know that in order to carry legally, you have to undergo training? And how was this guy risking the lives of the people inside any more than the two bad guys? What if, what if, what if. What if the bad guys just came in and shot everyone in the face? Is that better than a man preventing the potential deaths of others by lawfully reacting with deadly force? The only thing I see questionable is him continuing to fire after the threat was over. But the DA has no argument because people get caught up in the heat of the moment and to the defender, as long as they were in sight, they were probably a threat to his life.
Sorry, you dont know if their lives was in danger, he had a gun, maybe it wasn't loaded, maybe it's a fake gun, Maybe the kid running in with the gun is way to scared to actually use it to kill someone? i get it, it's logical to assume your life is in danger, but you actually dont have a clue.
If they run in and start shooting people, people will die, even if everyone in that room had guns, a shit ton of people would've been hurt, possibly killed. no matter how many guns, that will not change!
You have to undergo training yes, however you say it yourself later, People get caught in the heat of the moment, so they shouldn't be carrying guns..
Put everyones life in danger to protect some money. Check.. that's all he did.
And you know very well that the scenario you're talking about is much less likely then someone robbing someone, please, tell me you realise that..
i'll make it very simple:
in a normal situation, where guns are not allowed this is most likely to happen:
Someone with a gun threatens people, and take their money, then he runs away.
That's it.
in a normal situation, when guns are allowed and someone decies to use it, this is likely to happen:
Someone panics, take out their gun, and start shooting at the robber, if they hit, fine, it's over, they KILLED someone to protect money, if they miss, then everyone in that room is in danger, either he runs, or he starts shooting at anyone he can see or a combination of both..
The idiot that starts shooting somehow got the authority to put everyones life in danger, how the hell is that right?
If someone is going into a crowd of people and want to kill people, they will kill people, it's actually very rare that people try to do shit like that, but it's not rare that someone tries to steal stuff.
I seriously cannot understand how anyone can think that way.. "Well if i have a gun, i can shoot the guy that tries to shoot people, so that has to be good", it's not a fucking video game, so stop trying to be a "hero"... you're risking peoples lives,perhaps for no real reason at all, not only your own life.
|
On July 21 2012 06:14 hoby2000 wrote:
Should people be allowed to own forks? knives? cars? anything with sharp edges? ovens? curling irons? matches? microwaves?
This discussion is similar to those.
Except it's not it's completely fucking different holy shit how can people be this retarded.
|
US's 2nd admendment right not only lets you defend yourself and your family from intruders, but also from their own government. Is a government oppression likely? no probably not, but is just one more safeguard defending people from government oppression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
