|
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 06:25 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life.
This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime?
That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm.
|
If you want to own and carry a gun for your own safety i see nothing wrong with it. There are crazy people out there....
|
On July 21 2012 06:31 -Switch- wrote:
If you want to own and carry a gun for your own safety i see nothing wrong with it. There are crazy people out there....
And those same crazy people could go out and get a gun and then go on a killing spree like this.
|
On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people?
your post is beyond stupid.
|
On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people?
This is the most sensible post I've seen in days.
I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm.
|
On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life.
Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals.
The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim.
|
On July 21 2012 06:26 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:23 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote: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 I'm sorry, but you are very misinformed as are many who claim to be gun owners. There is no such thing as federal gun registration. The BAFTE does not have a national database of gun owners and what they have. They only keep track of certain categories, many of which do not apply to lawful gun owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_ActNo such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. And no, there's something called private party transactions, which does not require a background check. go to any gun shop, in any state, and ask about purchasing a firearm. ask about what you have to fill out, ask what gets registered.
I have an FFL, do you? I've purchased many, many firearms btw.
When purchasing a firearm from a dealer, you fill out a Form 4473. Dealers then call in and do an NCIS background check and keep a copy of the Form 4473. At no point are they obligated to send this to the BATFE. They keep all forms in their bound books and are not subject to turning it in unless the business goes under or if requested by the BATFE under certain circumstances. Nothing gets registered FFS.
|
On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm.
So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it.
|
On July 21 2012 06:32 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:31 -Switch- wrote:
If you want to own and carry a gun for your own safety i see nothing wrong with it. There are crazy people out there.... And those same crazy people could go out and get a gun and then go on a killing spree like this.
Do you think guns are just gonna go away?
Not sure what your side of the fence actually thinks would happen if guns became harder for average citizens to obtain. Are you insinuating that people would just stop getting shot? That accidents would just stop happening? That criminals would just say "well fuck what are we gonna do now? Guess I should put that job app in to dennys."
|
On July 21 2012 06:30 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime? That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm.
You do know you're much more likely to get injured/killed if you have a weapon on you don't you?
|
On July 21 2012 06:33 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? your post is beyond stupid.
why?
I think you are missing his point.
People are going to kill people regardless of how they do it
|
On July 21 2012 06:34 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals. The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim.
The problem I have with most people's ''pro gun'' arguments is they feel like they have a RIGHT to own a gun AND who should die and who shouldn't.
|
On July 21 2012 06:36 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:30 stevarius wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime? That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm. You do know you're much more likely to get injured/killed if you have a weapon on you don't you?
please explain how...?
You are going to argue for the logical capacities of a criminal?
good luck.
clearly the man killing the people at the theatre was checking all of the victims for guns before choosing which ones he shot?
you are insanely ignorant and are about to pull shit straight out of your ass to defend your ignorant statement.
|
On July 21 2012 06:30 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime? That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm.
If i hold a gun to your head, and you try to pull your own one out, theres only one certainty. You WILL die, because you never ever will be fast enough to get me.
I would rather hope that hes just interested in my money, and not in taking my life, and give it to him with as much ease i could possibly have.
Then again, im not american. Im not used to the concept to take justice in my own hands. Which is the most stupid concept ever, just to be clear here.
|
I'll make a last post in this thread. I did some posting the last time this was up and read most of it, but the last pages. If you search a bit there are some really good posts amongst all the bullshit from both sides. (I don't mean mine, i'm a little ranter sometimes).
I even kind of respect your right to a have a firearm in your house. I don't like it, i don't agree on it, but i'm too far away to really judge.
The things that are really bugging me though are:
Some states allow people carry automatic weapons + Show Spoiler +If i'm wrong here, i would be very happy!
I often also read about this fear of intruders. Anyone willing to kill a burgler to protect some money/dvd player/tv is batshit insane to me. If you roll that way, you need professional help IMHO. Also just ask yourselves: If you want to kill someone, what would you do? Break into his house at night? Of someone who might be a gun owner? Then you must be the most retarded killer to walk the earth.
Comparing the US to Switzerland and other countries is just stupid. "Everybody has an AR there, that's why there's no crime herp derp". One question to this kind of argumentation: What about the crimerate and guncontrol in Japan? Well you can't really compare Japan and the US huh? Oh waaaiiit a second...
|
On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm.
Gun laws are aimed to prevent, not punish. Most countries (US included) typically punish the harm caused by guns too in case you were wondering.
|
On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it.
People already are allowed to own explosives, and are allowed to own all the materials necessary to make explosives or napalm. So yes?
On July 21 2012 06:39 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. Gun laws are aimed to prevent, not punish.
They aim to prevent by means of punishment of harmless ownership. I'm not a big advocate of punishing responsible citizens who are harming no one.
|
On July 21 2012 06:38 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:36 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:30 stevarius wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:44 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:23 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:19 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime? That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm. You do know you're much more likely to get injured/killed if you have a weapon on you don't you? please explain how...? You are going to argue for the logical capacities of a criminal? good luck. clearly the man killing the people at the theatre was checking all of the victims for guns before choosing which ones he shot? you are insanely ignorant and are about to pull shit straight out of your ass to defend your ignorant statement.
You are the one who is ignorant and hold your RIGHTS above logic.
|
On July 21 2012 06:36 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:33 darthfoley wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? your post is beyond stupid. why? I think you are missing his point. People are going to kill people regardless of how they do it
So trying to ban things that make up a good portion of deaths in the US is a bad thing?
I fail to see any logic in his post.
|
On July 21 2012 06:38 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:34 Portlandian wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you" They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life. Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals. The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim. The problem I have with most people's ''pro gun'' arguments is they feel like they have a RIGHT to own a gun AND who should die and who shouldn't.
1. We do...have the RIGHT, to keep and bear arms, As I've said already it's in this handy document called the bill of rights.
2. A person gives up their right to live when they threaten the lives of my family, IDK bout you but I have a spine and i'm certainly not just gonna lie down when the lives of my family at risk. I don't give a shit what the criminals "intentions" are, and I don't need to. The only thing I need to do is protect me and my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
