Retired cop shoots son, mistook him as burglar - Page 17

On October 14 2012 15:54 shizzz wrote:


I can see where you are coming from in this post/others and can somewhat reason with you although I am happy living under strict gun control. The main point I understand you are (inadvertently?) making here is the right for all to bare arms with such ease will lead to a necessity for all to bare arms (yes i'm generalising somewhat there but you get the point). Perhaps this constitutional right could have been handled better but as many Americans have stated, as it stands there are too many guns and baddies with guns for the innocent to feel safe without their own for protection. In my opinion this doesn't make relaxed gun ownership right.. just possibly a viable solution as a result. Having said that, guns for everyone just in case the event arises civilians need to defend from the US govt/foreign invasion in this day and age just seems silly, i'm sure many wouldn't disagree with this though.

Other countries with different laws and histories regarding gun ownership will find themselves in a different position when posed with the question of gun control, no question there at all. Does this mean either side is necessarily wrong? Maybe not, but in the views of those where gun violence isn't a major concern, where it hasn't been ingrained into the average citizen that gun control is a violation of their basic freedoms, it seems easy enough to see which option is favourable.



I'm genuinely curious, if there was a very very minimal chance of anyone with any ill intention towards you possessing or having access to a firearm, would you still feel compelled to own one for the purpose of self defense? I gather we can agree civilians driving a tank around for defense is excessive, though is there a situation everyday civilians with firearms stored in their homes for defense could be excessive?

On October 15 2012 02:12 CoR wrote:
thats the problem that in usa everyone have a gun and shoot in head ... even if a burgler come in your house in germany and you shoot him in head, you just go in jail for murder ... your not allowed to just shoot someone in head even if they come in your house STUPID rule in usa sry ....

On October 15 2012 01:43 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


Because your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
I merely changed the subject from guns to cars and from guns to sex.

Your argument is, because a person is unwilling to defend his rights to X, therefore doing Y is justified.

On October 15 2012 01:37 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


So lack of motivation by a John Doe is justification to remove his ability to self defense beyond his personal weapons?
That's like saying if a person isn't watching for his car he deserves to have his car stolen or if a woman isn't too careful with what she drinks she deserves to get date raped.

Dude, you are one fucked up person.

On October 15 2012 02:12 CoR wrote:
thats the problem that in germiny everyone hate jews and shoot in head... even if jew have more money than you in USA and you shoot him in head, you just go in jail for murder... your not allowed to just genocide somedoby just casue they jew.

On October 15 2012 02:19 sevencck wrote:


No it isn't. His argument is there are ways of empowering a civilian population beyond mass gun ownership. Your assertion that mass gun ownership is effective or even somewhat appropriate is an assumption based on an irrational fear, it isn't obvious to us how you've arrived at that conclusion. You think just because Americans all own guns they'd be united against an oppressive government?? That's also an assumption, and not a remotely logical one. There are many American gun owners in the south that would use their guns to uphold a government advocating a return to slavery. So the notion that more guns somehow unites a population against an oppressive government is an assumption at best, and totally ludicrous at worst.

Also, your previous comparison isn't appropriate. I realize you're not suggesting a woman deserves to get raped because someone puts something in her drink, but first of all what are you taking away from the woman that prevents her from monitoring her drink? We're not advocating disarming a woman of her senses, so it doesn't meaningfully compare to advocating disarming someone of their gun. Second of all, noone is saying someone who gets attacked without a gun to "defend themselves" deserves it.

On October 15 2012 02:22 heliusx wrote:


lmao you have to be kidding.

On October 15 2012 02:04 HellRoxYa wrote:


Your entire post reads like a mental breakdown but this in particular makes me question your sanity. How in the world could you argue that guns kept military coups from happening?
Not only to military coups not happen in countries that do not have as lax gunlaws as you do but in a lot of African countries the readily available imported firearms and competing armed groups is just what creates the military coups you so want to prevent.

No, guns don't create stability. Functioning institutions and a belief in government to follow the democratic regulation, and a belief in democratic principles, does.

On October 15 2012 02:42 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


Yes, you are right. Guns don't create stability. People create stability. It is trust that creates stability.
People must decide for themselves to put away their weapons and trust each other and decide to come together in mutual cooperation.

This is a true democracy.

On October 15 2012 02:19 sevencck wrote:


No it isn't. His argument is there are ways of empowering a civilian population beyond mass gun ownership. Your assertion that mass gun ownership is effective or even somewhat appropriate is an assumption based on an irrational fear, it isn't obvious to us how you've arrived at that conclusion. You think just because Americans all own guns they'd be united against an oppressive government?? That's also an assumption, and not a remotely logical one. There are likely many American gun owners in the south that would use their guns to uphold a government advocating a return to slavery. So the notion that more guns somehow unites a population against an oppressive government is an assumption at best, and totally ludicrous at worst.



Also, your previous comparison isn't appropriate. I realize you're not suggesting a woman deserves to get raped because someone puts something in her drink, but first of all what are you taking away from the woman that prevents her from monitoring her drink? We're not advocating disarming a woman of her senses, so it doesn't meaningfully compare to advocating disarming someone of their gun. Secondly, noone is saying someone who gets attacked without a gun to "defend themselves" deserves it, so it's inappropriate to suggest it's like saying we think a woman deserves to get raped.

On October 15 2012 02:49 sevencck wrote:


I'm sorry but meaningful social progress and democracy aren't guided by people deciding everything for themselves. Slavery was banned and it required a bitterly-fought war to uphold that judgement. Women have equal rights to men, despite what many people believe about the issue. I'm not exactly equating these with gun ownership, but they are comparable in that they reflect how society sees human rights with respect to a certain issue that has far reaching implications. These instances of progress didn't happen because we waited for everyone to decide for themselves what was in the best interests of social progress and societal stability.

On October 15 2012 02:18 heliusx wrote:


yeah, protecting your life over some douche scumbag who made a choice to invade your home while you are present is so stupid. in fact you should just lay there and die. also shooting a hand gun is not an exact science, even for a trained professional those bullets can go anywhere in the heat of the moment. this isn't the gun range and it certainly isn't call of duty modern home warfare.

On October 15 2012 03:00 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


You are now advocate use of force then on those who don't agree.
Women didn't have to resort to war did they? It was dictated to the people, and the people desiring peace accepted it.
So you believe that dictating the laws is better than a national vote by representatives or otherwise on a matter?

I believe I am talking to a tyrant. Well, I respect your opinion and hope you enter politics to impose your will on Canada in the interest of social progress and societal stability.

On October 15 2012 02:55 Scarecrow wrote:

#1 I'm Australian, I'm aware of the Aboriginals. They're a minority with some political representation and substantial welfare. All whilst never having possessed firearms. When exactly are we talking about the guns protecting against the 'government' anyway? Stolen generation, colonisation, WAP, assimilation, the modern day? Minority's like the aboriginals have no use for guns, what would it achieve? They shoot some policemen or social workers then what?
#2 You're the one watching too much TV if you think there are 'villains' waiting to pounce on your undefended property.
#3 The gun possession -> book possession analogy is so absurd it's hard to respond to. I'm not saying all gun users are a problem but the sheer number of them make accidental/unnecessary deaths a statistical certainty. Everyone possessing books is hardly problematic whether they've read them or not.
#4You're the one saying that guns are important to have as a protection against government oppression. I don't believe guns are a danger in the sense of insurrection, just people dying unnecessarily like the poor kid in this thread.
#5 You're the one with the gun fixation. The vastly larger world you're talking about is the one that's laughing at the US for not catching on to the fact (despite regular massacres) that saturating a country with firearms isn't a good thing.

That'll be my last response as I'm sure I've induced more name-calling which I won't be bothered responding to. You can keep shitting all over this thread to your heart's content. The post about this being the boy's fault for not announcing his entry into the home was particularly tasteful.