|
On October 15 2012 07:51 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:29 heliusx wrote:On October 15 2012 07:26 tokicheese wrote:On October 15 2012 07:19 Jormundr wrote:
Holy cognitive dissonance batman! Now supported by tear jerking home invasion fantasies and what-if scenarios!
Nobody has argued against my point yet.
If you buy a gun for 'self defense', you are willing to kill someone with it.
P.S. It's always kind of funny how people get so outraged because of the hero mentality attached to self defense gun ownership. You just totally ignored my post. If someone enters a home illegally who should be gambling with their life? The innocent one or the one who is breaking the law putting both of our lives at risk? What exactly is your plan if someone does happen to break into your home? Yes I would be more than willing to kill someone who ignored me telling them I have a gun don't come upstairs. I hope I never have to take a human life during my lifetime but I don't plan on betting my life that I am a better fighter than someone breaking into my home. hehe, he changed his post from WANTING to kill to WILLING to kill. Then claims no one countered his argument. This guys is actually amusing me. Did you actually read my posts in the thread or just flame baiting? I bought my guns for target shooting and self defense was never a thought I had when I bought them or I wouldn't have bought a bolt action rifle. I said I didn't want to kill someone but if I was in my room told them I was armed and not to continue farther and if they continued upstairs I would not feel bad for shooting them. All a gun is is a tube of metal that makes another bit if metal go really fast. What you do with it is totally up to you
O.O I was incorrectly referring to jormunder when in fact it was someone else who said wanting to kill. We actually have almost identical views on gun ownership for home defense based on your posts.
|
On October 15 2012 07:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:36 tokicheese wrote:On October 15 2012 07:26 Jormundr wrote:On October 15 2012 07:09 heliusx wrote:On October 15 2012 07:06 Rebel_lion wrote:
OK cool. you all can defend yourselves and your loved ones. thats what the gun is for, right? This thread is about that. Only he kinda blew off his son's face.
Is the illusion of security paramount over operational mistakes? Was it more important to be: "protected" or to have a son live? Questions abound, a call out in the the night would sound, but instead gun enthusiast go round and round, and we all lose sight of an absurd sound, a cop buries his son in the ground. People act crazy and do stupid things, cool. Since people make operational mistakes and kill people with cars we should ban them. Oh wait, that's not a valid argument. Again, you've already thrown away any reason to use the car analogy, because according to you cars aren't meant to kill people when used properly, while guns are. Your so stupid it hurts. Guns can be used for target shooting, hunting, skeet shooting, and yes for killing people. 7.4 million guns in Canada With only 816 people killed from a gun. I bet peanuts kill more people than that in a year in Canada. How can there be a cognitive dissonance when i just admitted I would be willing to shoot to kill? Call it a hero complex or what have you it doesn't bother me. I know I can't fight for shit and a gun is the center of my worst case scenario self defense in my home. I did not establish that the sole purpose of guns is to kill. He did. That is why I used it against him. My cognitive dissonance comment applies to you because you immediate qualify your willingness to kill with a self righteous scenario. What about the situation that this very thread is about? Your kid comes in and doesn't hear your warning (assuming you give one). Do you shoot? What if it's your kid's boyfriend who you've never seen before? A landlord? The police? What if you just left your door open? What if its an unarmed burglar? Your example is black and white, whereas reality is much more gray. Unless you're saying that you have the clairvoyance to shoot only dem bad guys, in which case I know at least one man who is envious of you.
When I said guns are only for killing I was talking about a self defense scenario, meaning you don't try to knee cap shot someone as someone else said. Of course I recognize the utility of a gun in hunting and recreation.
|
On October 15 2012 07:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:26 tokicheese wrote:On October 15 2012 07:19 Jormundr wrote:
Holy cognitive dissonance batman! Now supported by tear jerking home invasion fantasies and what-if scenarios!
Nobody has argued against my point yet.
If you buy a gun for 'self defense', you are willing to kill someone with it.
P.S. It's always kind of funny how people get so outraged because of the hero mentality attached to self defense gun ownership. You just totally ignored my post. If someone enters a home illegally who should be gambling with their life? The innocent one or the one who is breaking the law putting both of our lives at risk? What exactly is your plan if someone does happen to break into your home? Yes I would be more than willing to kill someone who ignored me telling them I have a gun don't come upstairs. I hope I never have to take a human life during my lifetime but I don't plan on betting my life that I am a better fighter than someone breaking into my home. I am fairly certain I haven't been involved in a discussion on the ethics of self defense. You brought that one up yourself because you can't handle your cognitive dissonance over the fact that gun ownership for the purpose of self defense equates to a willingness to kill. Furthermore you simplify self defense into a clear cut hero scenario where the gun is the focus of your self defense plan so you can feel more self righteous.
There is no cognitive dissonance in this scenario. By definition if you own a gun for self defense you are willing to risk killing someone. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, there's a chance they'll die. It's ultimately a cost-benefit analysis.
Would you rather live with the risk that you couldn't protect yourself or your family from an armed intruder, or risk accidentally harming said family by the errant use of your gun?
You probably project the illusion that shooting someone makes you a hero because you don't live in an area where shootings are common. For some people it's not a possibility you can just ignore. I don't know where this cop lived in Chicago but the south side of Chicago definitely qualifies as one of those areas.
|
Lol Jormundr is the worst poster I've seen on TL in a a while. The guy makes a terrible post with no logic whatsoever, gets called out for it by multiple people then proceeds to get even more thick and obnoxious. I'm wondering if I just didn't get trolled.
|
On October 15 2012 08:00 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:51 tokicheese wrote:On October 15 2012 07:29 heliusx wrote:On October 15 2012 07:26 tokicheese wrote:On October 15 2012 07:19 Jormundr wrote:
Holy cognitive dissonance batman! Now supported by tear jerking home invasion fantasies and what-if scenarios!
Nobody has argued against my point yet.
If you buy a gun for 'self defense', you are willing to kill someone with it.
P.S. It's always kind of funny how people get so outraged because of the hero mentality attached to self defense gun ownership. You just totally ignored my post. If someone enters a home illegally who should be gambling with their life? The innocent one or the one who is breaking the law putting both of our lives at risk? What exactly is your plan if someone does happen to break into your home? Yes I would be more than willing to kill someone who ignored me telling them I have a gun don't come upstairs. I hope I never have to take a human life during my lifetime but I don't plan on betting my life that I am a better fighter than someone breaking into my home. hehe, he changed his post from WANTING to kill to WILLING to kill. Then claims no one countered his argument. This guys is actually amusing me. Did you actually read my posts in the thread or just flame baiting? I bought my guns for target shooting and self defense was never a thought I had when I bought them or I wouldn't have bought a bolt action rifle. I said I didn't want to kill someone but if I was in my room told them I was armed and not to continue farther and if they continued upstairs I would not feel bad for shooting them. All a gun is is a tube of metal that makes another bit if metal go really fast. What you do with it is totally up to you O.O I was incorrectly referring to jormunder when in fact it was someone else who said wanting to kill. We actually have almost identical views on gun ownership for home defense based on your posts.
Oh sorry my apologies!
|
Replying on a phone is so fucking difficult :/
@Jormander
I would ask the person in my home who they were and tell them I am armed. Anyone who is there and should be would say who they were and then life would go on. If they did not reply they obviously should not be where they are and I would warn them coming up the stairs=getting shot. If someone continues upstairs after they did not identify themselves they are there with malicious intent and I would shoot them. I wouldn't leave my room because that means I am looking to kill. If they enter my bedroom I have no choice.
If they wanted to steal something they would stay on the first floor and then run like hell when they knew i was up and the cops were coming. My pc or tv isn't worth the weight of taking a human life to me take it and go.
Lots of people refer to the upstairs of a home the red zone. A burglar has no reason to be in this area because all the valuables like tvs, pcs, whatever is downstairs. It also much easier to sneak around a house when your a level awY rather than being right next to the people your trying to not wake up.
|
oh man this is just a sad story haha.. can u imagine when ur 77 years old and just before ur gonna die you kill your own spawn? that's gotta be the worst feeling
|
People who think the US could just outlaw guns and have complete control over them... after this long of everyone owning guns, have some ridiculous expectations of people.
Debating whether or not citizens having guns is safer or more dangerous is a completely worthless argument to have. The simple fact of the matter is:
A: We have guns, they wont go away. Trying to forcibly remove people guns from their possession would be catastrophic.
B: Sometimes accidents happen. Sometime they happen with guns. Taking guns out of the equation wont stop accidents.
The best we can do is tighten regulations on guns and ammo, and the supplies to make those things. But that still doesn't keep the millions of crazies, thieves, murdered, and regular old joes from the guns they already have...
This debate come up so frequently and it never gets anywhere. Whether everyone being allowed to own guns was a good idea or not is moot. They're here. You'd be doing the world a whole lot of service if you'd stop debating about how things are shitty and instead debated about how to make them not shitty anymore. Taking peoples weapons away simple isn't the way to do that. The active resistance would be monumental... no.... revolutionary to something like that.
|
an ex-police officer that shoots before identifiying he´s target... nice..
|
On October 15 2012 08:17 Matoo- wrote:
Lol Jormundr is the worst poster I've seen on TL in a a while. The guy makes a terrible post with no logic whatsoever, gets called out for it by multiple people then proceeds to get even more thick and obnoxious. I'm wondering if I just didn't get trolled.
Thanks for wasting my time and the time of everyone else in this thread. I'll stand by my assertion that gun ownership for the purpose of 'self defense' equates to a willingness to kill until someone can form a convincing argument otherwise. Considering most of the gun owners I know agree with me on this point I doubt its going to be debunked any time soon. I'm going to guess you made the assumption that I hold the opinion that all people who own guns are crazy and bloodthirsty. This is incorrect, and you need to reread my posts.
|
You definitely should be allowed to kill people who break into your house, maybe firearms should be illegal though because range+bad lighting can cause accidents like this. So maybe a solid knife or something that requires good identification of your target. Also if it becomes perfectly legal to shoot people who break into your house they should ease up on the prosecution of burglars so as to keep the risk to reward ratio good for that profession.
|
On October 15 2012 09:40 DanLee wrote:
You definitely should be allowed to kill people who break into your house
This view on things baffles me.
It's like this here in Germany: If you would break my arm in a fight i would NOT be allowed to kill you. The commensurability is a law.
Beeing ok with outright killing someone who is on your ground (before even talking to him) is questionable.
Now i get that the culture is different and i don't agree with them beeing allowed but i can see the point. The point i do not get is the way those incidents can occure.
|
On October 15 2012 09:40 DanLee wrote:
You definitely should be allowed to kill people who break into your house.
I just don't get how you can have this attitude. Since when does trespassing give the landowner free reign to murder someone? If you kill an unarmed thief/trespasser I honestly think you should do time.
|
Austria657 Posts
Shouldn't he have asked who it was first before shooting him in the head. More and more, I am suspecting foreplay.
|
I can't believe people actually think you should be allowed to kill soemone just because he broke into your house. There is a line, a thin line I'll give you that, but a line nonetheless, between self defense and murder. You kill someone that is unarmed and to me that is murder, no matter the situation. Go ahead and fight him off with a bat or w/e but you don't just go for the headshot. Holy shmoly.
|
On October 15 2012 22:43 S:klogW wrote:
Shouldn't he have asked who it was first before shooting him in the head. More and more, I am suspecting foreplay.
I don't think people have foreplay or what usually ensues from it with their children. That's just wrong.
|
I have a hard time feeling bad for the father.
He intended to rob someone else of their son and lost his own.
Shooting someone in the head is a disproportionate penalty for stealing.
|
The thing I want to know is how the father got the gun that quickly? Don't they usually hide them in the closet. There should be enough time between the waking up, getting the gun, etc. to be able to identify your own son.
|
On October 16 2012 03:51 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I have a hard time feeling bad for the father.
He intended to rob someone else of their son and lost his own.
Shooting someone in the head is a disproportionate penalty for stealing.
I'm not defending that dumb man in any way but to imply people only break into houses to steal is incorrect. And to think someone should not put their safety above someone who made a decision to break into an occupied home is even more baffling. The chance of someone breaking into an occupied home to steal is just so low. Therefore you would be right to assume someone breaking into your home while you are there are intending to harm you.
|
On October 16 2012 03:57 LeafMeAlone wrote:
The thing I want to know is how the father got the gun that quickly? Don't they usually hide them in the closet. There should be enough time between the waking up, getting the gun, etc. to be able to identify your own son.
Not if you keep a loaded gun under your bed. Then it takes about five seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
