Father James Griffin, a retired Chicago police officer, and son Michael Griffin, were staying up late bumming in the couch watching Jay Leno. As what usually happens, the elder father falls asleep. Meanwhile, son Michael left the apartment and returned through the backdoor. Father James thought it was a burglar. He shoots him in the head. Stephen, another son, called in the incident. The Chicago police are still investigating.
This story is chillingly similar to another case last month involving a teacher killing a man wearing a mask who turned out to be his son.
Well, why did the cop, and the teacher have a gun? And why is it their first instinct to shoot first?
A retired Chicago police officer has shot and killed his son, after mistaking him for a burglar.
Michael Griffin, 48, died of a gunshot wound to the head at his father's home in the northwest side of Chicago, CBS Local Chicago reports.
It was a tragic case of mistaken identity for Michael's father, Chicago Police Detective James Griffin, according to another son.
"My brother was staying there, and last I heard they were watching the Jay Leno show and my dad fell asleep," Stephen Griffin told CBS Local Chicago. According to police, Michael had apparently left the apartment and returned through a back door.
"And I guess he assumed my brother was at home sleeping, and when someone came in the back door, he just naturally assumed it was an intruder," Stephen said of his father.
"At that time he didn't know who he shot," Griffin, 47, told the Chicago Tribune. "Then he called me back and told me the bad news,'' said Griffin, whose mother died in 1999. "I'm just glad my mom wasn't around to see this."
Griffin said his father, who is 77, was a police officer for more than 40 years, serving as a homicide detective and then retiring in 1998.
He told the Chicago newspaper that his father's senses "aren't as sharp as they used to be,'' but that he is still healthy enough to play in a local basketball league.
"He's in pretty good health except for some bumps and bruises from playing basketball," Griffin told the Tribune. "I don't know if his age had a lot to do with it."
This is the second incident in recent weeks in which a father shot and killed a son, mistaking him for an intruder.
Last month, a Connecticut teacher shot and killed a young man wearing a mask in his neighbor's yard — only to learn later the young man he had killed was his son.
Chicago police have not filed any charges in the Griffin family incident. They are investigating.
"I'm still freaking out about it," Griffin said about his father's case to the Tribune. "I have two sons of my own, and I can't imagine how he must feel.''
Shooting to kill before being able to identify your own son is extremely questionable in my opinion. Not saying he murdered his son, just seems so inconceivable to me.
Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european.
From what i see it, they shoot to kill because they are afraid to identify first? I mean maybe they are afraid that the "intruder" also has a weapon and that they would get the first shot in if the father didnt use the element of surprise.
Jeez that's one fucked up story. But why are you asking why they had firearms? You know as well as I it's their right guaranteed to them. You shouldn't use a sensational story to further your view on others.
On October 12 2012 14:54 killa_robot wrote: You allow people to own guns and inevitably accidents like this will happen.
Sucks, but short of restricting gun access (which is no doubt what this thread will derive into), that won't change.
Feel bad for the son that's dead, the son that's living, and the father; in that order.
I feel for them equally, none of them wanted this to happen or saw it coming. That said, I just don't understand how you can kill your own son with a headshot before being able to identify him.
Well, why did the cop, and the teacher have a gun? And why is it their first instinct to shoot first?
Time for another gun control debate, huh?
On October 12 2012 15:00 GolemMadness wrote: This is why people shouldn't own guns. Too many lack the common sense to use them properly.
No one should have the freedom to do X because a few people abuse X? Sounds rather silly, and I personally don't even care to own a gun.
On topic: It's a tragedy. Perhaps they lived in a neighborhood where there's a lot of crime, or seeing as how it was late at night, perhaps the man was scared or tired. Obviously it was a mistake. Let's see what a judge says.
These things occur all too often, it seems like some tragic accident happens then everyone starts talking about gun control/laws. I keep reading these things, and I have to admit that I'm starting to creep towards increased gun control. Which is something that I don't think that I would consider myself doing, since my family owns a lot of guns.
It still does seem odd that he has enough time to get a gun and shoot his son in the face. When you think of it as a black and white scenario it is very strange. I guess the cop training kicked in and he just reacted.
Wow, that's terrible OP. How could a supposedly modern country have backwards laws like this? People can just own guns and shoot someone walking in their house. I think we need stricter gun control.
As an American, I personally believe that personal possession of firearms should be outlawed in our country. Yet many ignorant and conspiracy theorists claim that if we don't keep guns, then there no way" to overthrow the government". That is an actual quote from a conversation that i had 2 weeks ago with a friend. Its propoganda like this from organizations such as the National Rifle Association taht make people believe that we actually need protection from the government. The last time Congress issued a moratorium on gun sales was around 2000 i believe, and was passed by a Democratic congress. After loosing their majority in the next election, they concluded that passing another bill would be political suicide. Until we get people to change their minds and for congressmen and women to stand up for whats right, not for what will get them reelected, will tragic events like these be prevented
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state but more are allowing it. I know in Arizona, if you're in someone's house you're pretty much free game for murder regardless of why you're there.
There was something in Houston today. (thursday) A cop shot dead a guy that "was charging" at him yet the guy was like six feet away with no weapons. A lot of people are pissed, albeit what got the cops called on him in the first place. (usual fight with father, molested his step-son or something)
Also, if you create more laws, it's just more time in jail. Laws do not prevent, just discourages.
On October 12 2012 15:08 CTSChao wrote: As an American, I personally believe that personal possession of firearms should be outlawed in our country. Yet many ignorant and conspiracy theorists claim that if we don't keep guns, then there no way" to overthrow the government". That is an actual quote from a conversation that i had 2 weeks ago with a friend. Its propoganda like this from organizations such as the National Rifle Association taht make people believe that we actually need protection from the government. The last time Congress issued a moratorium on gun sales was around 2000 i believe, and was passed by a Democratic congress. After loosing their majority in the next election, they concluded that passing another bill would be political suicide. Until we get people to change their minds and for congressmen and women to stand up for whats right, not for what will get them reelected, will tragic events like these be prevented
Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state but more are allowing it. I know in Arizona, if you're in someone's house you're pretty much free game for murder regardless of why you're there.
Wow, that's so stupid! I mean being able to just kill someone because they are standing somewhere you don't like? What kind of a horrible legal system do they have?
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state but more are allowing it. I know in Arizona, if you're in someone's house you're pretty much free game for murder regardless of why you're there.
That sounds completely and utterly insane. Are you sure it's the case?
On October 12 2012 15:10 DigiGnar wrote: There was something in Houston today. (thursday) A cop shot dead a guy that "was charging" at him yet the guy was like six feet away with no weapons. A lot of people are pissed, albeit what got the cops called on him in the first place. (usual fight with father, molested his step-son or something)
Also, if you create more laws, it's just more time in jail. Laws do not prevent, just discourages.
Nope. Europe has "proved" it. Prohibition works when it comes to guns, because guns aren't easy to make like alcohol or weed.
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state but more are allowing it. I know in Arizona, if you're in someone's house you're pretty much free game for murder regardless of why you're there.
Wow, that's so stupid! I mean being able to just kill someone because they are standing somewhere you don't like? What kind of a horrible legal system do they have?
Am I right?
Yeah its fucked up and a lot of people don't realize the way the law is written it has pretty terrible consequences.
That sounds completely and utterly insane. Are you sure it's the case?
Pretty much the law says you can use deadly force to make someone leave your property
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state but more are allowing it. I know in Arizona, if you're in someone's house you're pretty much free game for murder regardless of why you're there.
Wow, that's so stupid! I mean being able to just kill someone because they are standing somewhere you don't like? What kind of a horrible legal system do they have?
Am I right?
Yeah its fucked up and a lot of people don't realize the way the law is written it has pretty terrible consequences.
That sounds completely and utterly insane. Are you sure it's the case?
Pretty much the law says you can use deadly force to make someone leave your property
God, how do so many people support these types of laws? They are so obviously backwards. Must be because of the American education system or something. Maybe if they weren't spending so much on wars.
I've said this forever... it's every American gun owners fantasy to defend their homestead with their firearm. Literally, its a fantasy. They look forward to it. I know numerous people like this. It justifies their machismo little fetish. But... cases where a home is successfully defended from an invader with a firearm are almost impossible to find.
For most people it's just a hobby that is an accident waiting to happen. So sad. You have to feel for everyone in these people's lives. Tragic.
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
in certain states, mostly southern ones, yes
On October 12 2012 15:16 CursOr wrote: I've said this forever... it's every American gun owners fantasy to defend their homestead with their firearm. Literally, its a fantasy. They look forward to it. I know numerous people like this. It justifies their machismo little fetish. But... cases where a home is successfully defended from an invader with a firearm are almost impossible to find.
For most people it's just a hobby that is an accident waiting to happen. So sad. You have to feel for everyone in these people's lives. Tragic.
my brother lives in texas, in a part where you can legally shoot your gun in your front yard if the bullet does not leave your property, and these are not large houses (average of what you find in a suburban neighborhood). he longs for the day someone robs his house because he does want to shoot somebody.
On October 12 2012 15:16 CursOr wrote: I've said this forever... it's every American gun owners fantasy to defend their homestead with their firearm. Literally, its a fantasy. They look forward to it. I know numerous people like this. It justifies their machismo little fetish. But... cases where a home is successfully defended from an invader with a firearm are almost impossible to find.
For most people it's just a hobby that is an accident waiting to happen. So sad. You have to feel for everyone in these people's lives. Tragic.
Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
On October 12 2012 15:22 Inori wrote: I wonder if there's a comparison somewhere between causalities from shootings, accidents, etc and successful self-defense (in a situation where's it's actually needed)
Oh I know! There is. Probably several. And they all say you are more likely to die from your own gun than defending yourself so it makes no sense to own a gun for defense. There's really NO reason and it should be outlawed.
On October 12 2012 15:11 brachester wrote: Jesus, this is not about why he owns a gun, but why the fuck does he just fucking shoot on sight? An ex-cop should have known better than that
This. Exactly this. Should have identified first who's he shooting at.
This man was a retired cop. A homicide detective to boot. He was (used to be at least) very qualified to use a gun. Hardly someone I'd consider a "regular person" owning a gun. In the US, if you bought the gun legally, you are allowed to have it. As far as the legality of shooting intruders on site, I'm pretty sure there isn't a law that says it's specifically ok, but arguing that you were justified in court is where the right vs wrong come into it legally, rather than it being a right or wrong thing pre-trial. AFIAK it's a case-by-case thing for self-defense cases and whether or not you were in the right. I don't really have an opinion on gun control either way, but for anyone who immediately thinks "we should take away all the guns and no one should have one" when they hear this sort of thing should realize that someone who thinks differently than you probably has 2 stories of having a gun paying off for every example you know of like the stories in the OP where it is clearly a big factor in a tragedy. Read an NRA magazine if you don't believe me. Every issue there's stories of guys with concealed carry permits stopping a robbery or rape or what-have-you. Just saying, there are definitely two sides to this argument, and its been argued plenty here and everywhere else.
Whether or not this man was in the right is a matter for court, and whether or not it is right for any random person to own/carry a gun is way to convoluted a debate to have again and again IMO. I hope this thread doesn't turn into that circular debate again ala DKR opening night thread. My heart goes out to the father though. Assuming that the investigation doesn't turn up some sort of motive for foul play, it seems like a terrible case of wrong place/wrong time. And to have shot your own son... It makes me feel sick to think about that loss. Hopefully having been a homicide detective for so long in Chicago would help cope with the aftermath/grief, I don't know how anybody would do it. :/
It's not the guns in this case that cause the problem. They exaggerate it, but they're not the cause. Canada has tons of firearm owners, and their gun-murder rate is ridiculously lower than ours to a point where you can't even compare the two.
The fact is that both of these people were scared to death - one of a person walking into his house and another only in a neighbor's yard - so badly that they shot them in the head before knowing who they were shooting or what their intentions were.
The cause of the problem was fear. They were scared for their life because there was a person they didn't know within 100 yards of them. That's the problem we need to fix. Americans are scared shit-less by the tiniest things for no reason at all, and we need to figure out why (probably at least partly the media's over-focus on crime - it makes you forget the chances of being involved in such are actually very low) and start to work on ways to remove some of that fear from the American public.
And yet, sadly, >In before 20 more pages of gun debate and nobody focusing on the real issue.
On October 12 2012 15:11 brachester wrote: Jesus, this is not about why he owns a gun, but why the fuck does he just fucking shoot on sight? An ex-cop should have known better than that
This. Exactly this. Should have identified first who's he shooting at.
Yeah but if he didn't own a gun it wouldn't have occurred so guns claim another unnecessary life.
On October 12 2012 15:24 MurDeRsc2 wrote: When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
I don't know Japanese law but it seems Japan has their shit together with gun law.
I'm highly against gun ownership, but the US is too far gone to do anything about guns. There are too many in circulation which are both registered and unregistered. That is why when I'm older I'm going to move to a different country.
On October 12 2012 15:11 brachester wrote: Jesus, this is not about why he owns a gun, but why the fuck does he just fucking shoot on sight? An ex-cop should have known better than that
This. Exactly this. Should have identified first who's he shooting at.
lol just imagine if every time someone breaks into a house, the homeowner said "hello sir, do you have identification?"
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
it's funny how lightly you take someone stealing "some stuff" imagine what would happen if everyone acted like this although I do agree you wouldn't just shoot him you confront the robber if he has a knife or a weapon you should defend yourself in anyway you can but if he's un-armed you should probably just fight him and pin him to the ground and call the cops to have him arrested.
Also it's very strange he just shot him without asking who he was or trying to see if it actually was a robber and if he was armed or not.
On October 12 2012 15:24 MurDeRsc2 wrote: When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
I don't know Japanese law but it seems Japan has their shit together with gun law.
I'm highly against gun ownership, but the US is too far gone to do anything about guns. There are too many in circulation which are both registered and unregistered. That is why when I'm older I'm going to move to a different country.
Oh you are moving because of guns? Good idea. The odds of randomly getting shot are so high here. Especially if you live in the South.
Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
On October 12 2012 15:24 MurDeRsc2 wrote: When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
I don't know Japanese law but it seems Japan has their shit together with gun law.
I'm highly against gun ownership, but the US is too far gone to do anything about guns. There are too many in circulation which are both registered and unregistered. That is why when I'm older I'm going to move to a different country.
Oh you are moving because of guns? Good idea. The odds of randomly getting shot are so high here. Especially if you live in the South.
I can't tell if these posts are serious or not. If you are really thinking about leaving a country because you are afraid to get shot it wasn't just this dude shooting his son who is insanely paranoid...
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
On October 12 2012 15:24 MurDeRsc2 wrote: When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
I don't know Japanese law but it seems Japan has their shit together with gun law.
I'm highly against gun ownership, but the US is too far gone to do anything about guns. There are too many in circulation which are both registered and unregistered. That is why when I'm older I'm going to move to a different country.
Oh you are moving because of guns? Good idea. The odds of randomly getting shot are so high here. Especially if you live in the South.
I can't tell if these posts are serious or not. If you are really thinking about leaving a country because you are afraid to get shot it wasn't just this dude shooting his son who is insanely paranoid...
The U.S. is a great country, but I've gotta tell you, the prospect of doing a post doc in your country scares me a bit due to the gun culture.
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
This has to be considered. There just isn't enough evidence (we may never get it as members of the public) to say whether he went crazy, was already crazy, just wanted to shoot someone, had a snap reaction that turned out badly, or if the son came in pretending to be a burglar, or if he simply could not judge the situation properly due to age/PTSD/etc and pulled the trigger, maybe he meant it to be a warning shot, or any number of other factors.
A jury will decide if he is innocent or guilty. It's not for a bunch of people who read the hastily written aftermath article to make a snap call on whether or not this guy was an idiot for carrying a gun or not. Personally I agree with VanillaCoke in this instance, probably highly trained, however old/retired, and not some fool who only ever went to the shooting range to shoot until the one night when he killed his own son.
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
Sounds like you hit the nail on the... well, this sounds most likely.
The shooter seems to have ptsd that's untreated :/. Such paranoia and rash decision making is a bi product of worrying about dying to criminals for over 40 years. This lead him to have a survival kill or be killed mentality.
On October 12 2012 15:46 Jimmycliff wrote: The shooter seems to have ptsd that's untreated :/. Such paranoia and rash decision making is a bi product of worrying about dying to criminals for over 40 years. This lead him to have a survival kill or be killed mentality.
He was a homicide detective, they investigate death scenes, they don't patrol, they sit in an office and wait for a call, and then go investigate the body. If you're interested in the subject, I recommend Homicide by David Simon.
Also, who are you to diagnose the man? It could be just as easily blamed on advanced age as it could on PTSD.
On October 12 2012 15:11 brachester wrote: Jesus, this is not about why he owns a gun, but why the fuck does he just fucking shoot on sight? An ex-cop should have known better than that
This. Exactly this. Should have identified first who's he shooting at.
lol just imagine if every time someone breaks into a house, the homeowner said "hello sir, do you have identification?"
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
On October 12 2012 15:00 GolemMadness wrote: This is why people shouldn't own guns. Too many lack the common sense to use them properly.
No one should have the freedom to do X because a few people abuse X? Sounds rather silly, and I personally don't even care to own a gun.
On topic: It's a tragedy. Perhaps they lived in a neighborhood where there's a lot of crime, or seeing as how it was late at night, perhaps the man was scared or tired. Obviously it was a mistake. Let's see what a judge says.
That's a flawed argument. Iimagine everyone has a nuke and some crazy dude started using it, are you gonna support people to continue carrying nukes? and claim our argument is a silly sounding argument as well?
Even if guns were to be 100% outlawed for citizens of the US, there would still be a lot of people with guns, it would just develop the black market it has, to the level of what drugs has.
On October 12 2012 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: OP,
Well, why did the cop, and the teacher have a gun? And why is it their first instinct to shoot first?
Time for another gun control debate, huh?
On October 12 2012 15:00 GolemMadness wrote: This is why people shouldn't own guns. Too many lack the common sense to use them properly.
No one should have the freedom to do X because a few people abuse X? Sounds rather silly, and I personally don't even care to own a gun.
On topic: It's a tragedy. Perhaps they lived in a neighborhood where there's a lot of crime, or seeing as how it was late at night, perhaps the man was scared or tired. Obviously it was a mistake. Let's see what a judge says.
That's a flawed argument. Iimagine everyone has a nuke and some crazy dude started using it, are you gonna support people to continue carrying nukes? and claim our argument is a silly sounding argument as well?
Come on, nukes? Really? You're comparing gun ownership to a bomb that can kill millions in fractions of a second? Give me a break...
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
On October 12 2012 15:24 MurDeRsc2 wrote: When will people learn and make laws against guns? We don't need them. If no one had guns, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Wish the people of the United States would learn. The Euro countries that have banned them are ahead of the curve. We are so backwards in so many ways..
I don't know Japanese law but it seems Japan has their shit together with gun law.
I'm highly against gun ownership, but the US is too far gone to do anything about guns. There are too many in circulation which are both registered and unregistered. That is why when I'm older I'm going to move to a different country.
Oh you are moving because of guns? Good idea. The odds of randomly getting shot are so high here. Especially if you live in the South.
I can't tell if these posts are serious or not. If you are really thinking about leaving a country because you are afraid to get shot it wasn't just this dude shooting his son who is insanely paranoid...
The U.S. is a great country, but I've gotta tell you, the prospect of doing a post doc in your country scares me a bit due to the gun culture.
Yeah, I like and visit the US on fairly regular occasions, but for the most part I don't feel safe at all. I can walk down the worst street/neighbourhood in my city just fine, because I know worse case scenario is someone runs out their house with a knife or some other melee weapon. In which case I'd still have a chance to run/defend myself from the crazed psycho.
The thought that gun access is so loose and so many people could potentially just up and shoot me is a frightening one. Not that all Americans are gun-touting pyschos lol, just that the potential and mentality is there.
He shot him so fast he didnt even have a chance to say anything and in the head yet. Trigger happy. Couldve shot the guy in the leg, or better yet just ask whos there...
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
On October 12 2012 15:46 Jimmycliff wrote: The shooter seems to have ptsd that's untreated :/. Such paranoia and rash decision making is a bi product of worrying about dying to criminals for over 40 years. This lead him to have a survival kill or be killed mentality.
He was a homicide detective, they investigate death scenes, they don't patrol, they sit in an office and wait for a call, and then go investigate the body. If you're interested in the subject, I recommend Homicide by David Simon.
Also, who are you to diagnose the man? It could be just as easily blamed on advanced age as it could on PTSD.
There will be a reasonable explanation for sure. Maybe he's a victim too. But that doesn't mean that there is something fundamentally wrong there. At some point you have to ask yourself what circumstances enabled this situation to happen.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
Nobody shoots for the head for the same reason that they don't shoot for the limbs, it's a smaller target.
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
This has to be considered. There just isn't enough evidence (we may never get it as members of the public) to say whether he went crazy, was already crazy, just wanted to shoot someone, had a snap reaction that turned out badly, or if the son came in pretending to be a burglar, or if he simply could not judge the situation properly due to age/PTSD/etc and pulled the trigger, maybe he meant it to be a warning shot, or any number of other factors.
A jury will decide if he is innocent or guilty. It's not for a bunch of people who read the hastily written aftermath article to make a snap call on whether or not this guy was an idiot for carrying a gun or not. Personally I agree with VanillaCoke in this instance, probably highly trained, however old/retired, and not some fool who only ever went to the shooting range to shoot until the one night when he killed his own son.
So that's an excuse now? Its quite possible that this guy is kind of a weirdo, a broken man, a man with a possible psychic condition? Maybe that shit would not have happened if there were actually some laws in place who check up on people that own weapons, just saying? If you have psychos running around which can snap at any point in time, just because someone did or said something that remembered him of something, the last thing a ->sane<- person would do is give that guy a gun.
That should actually be common sense. And btw, he killed his son with a headshot. I dont know about you, but i know for a fact, that a warning shot does NOT include aiming for the head. And further, before a warning shot, you actually fuckin warn your "enemy". You know, just in case. If the highly trained police-officer wanted to "warn", he would have warned him. That was a shot intended to kill. Question is, was the son a target all along, or did he snap and went fubar.
Nobody shoots for the head for the same reason that they don't shoot for the limbs, it's a smaller target.
True, for the states at least. Over here, the police shoot limbs (just happened rougly two weeks ago). In general, you do not aim for the "biggest target", but where you get the most "stopping power". Thats chest/torso/center of mass in general, which also happens to be the biggest target.
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
This has to be considered. There just isn't enough evidence (we may never get it as members of the public) to say whether he went crazy, was already crazy, just wanted to shoot someone, had a snap reaction that turned out badly, or if the son came in pretending to be a burglar, or if he simply could not judge the situation properly due to age/PTSD/etc and pulled the trigger, maybe he meant it to be a warning shot, or any number of other factors.
A jury will decide if he is innocent or guilty. It's not for a bunch of people who read the hastily written aftermath article to make a snap call on whether or not this guy was an idiot for carrying a gun or not. Personally I agree with VanillaCoke in this instance, probably highly trained, however old/retired, and not some fool who only ever went to the shooting range to shoot until the one night when he killed his own son.
So that's an excuse now? Its quite possible that this guy is kind of a weirdo, a broken man, a man with a possible psychic condition? Maybe that shit would not have happened if there were actually some laws in place who check up on people that own weapons, just saying? If you have psychos running around which can snap at any point in time, just because someone did or said something that remembered him of something, the last thing a ->sane<- person would do is give that guy a gun.
That should actually be common sense. And btw, he killed his son with a headshot. I dont know about you, but i know for a fact, that a warning shot does NOT include aiming for the head. And further, before a warning shot, you actually fuckin warn your "enemy". You know, just in case. If the highly trained police-officer wanted to "warn", he would have warned him. That was a shot intended to kill. Question is, was the son a target all along, or did he snap and went fubar.
Nobody shoots for the head for the same reason that they don't shoot for the limbs, it's a smaller target.
True, for the states at least. Over here, the police shoot limbs (just happened rougly two weeks ago). In general, you do not aim for the "biggest target", but where you get the most "stopping power". Thats chest/torso/center of mass in general, which also happens to be the biggest target.
im pretty sure if he really had a psychic condition he would have known it was his son and not headshot him.
People also need to realize that a homicide detective is NOT a street cop, and if the man is 70-some years old, than police training definitely wasn't what it is today when he actually WAS a street cop.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
On October 12 2012 15:22 Inori wrote: I wonder if there's a comparison somewhere between causalities from shootings, accidents, etc and successful self-defense (in a situation where's it's actually needed)
There is more on there, I would urge people to check it out.
Also from http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf: During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
You are completely wrong. I went through state police academy; we are trained that if you discharge your firearm at a suspect, it is because you have no choice but to kill. Police officers NEVER shoot to wound, because of the use of force continuum; if you aren't 100% certain you want to kill someone, you never, ever discharge a firearm. If wounding is the intent, you wrestle them to the ground, or perform a takedown, or strike them with the hand, or strike them with a baton, depending on the amount of force the situation dictates. A firearm is only ever involved if an immediate threat to life is present, and when this is the case, training dictates that (with a handgun) one aims and fires at the assailant's center mass until he is on the ground.
I don't know where you got your information from, but it is completely inaccurate.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
You either misquoted or don't understand him. He agrees with you. In fact he already said what you just said...
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Being an Australian as well I feel the same way but when something like this happens to us the burglar is less likely to have a gun, fear was their motivation.
I chased off a burglar with a cricket bat and loud shouting when I was 16, nowhere in my mind was I worried about getting shot I knew the fucker stood no chance against my bat and neighbour reinforcements even if he had a knife.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Then you said I was wrong and I agreed.
E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol
If you stopped there, but you did not.
I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself:
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits".
The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
You're clearly smart enough to make a point without being an asshole.
On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote: Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?...
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Then you said I was wrong and I agreed.
E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol
If you stopped there, but you did not.
I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself:
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits".
The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
Where I grew up we all used to keep hunting rifles next to our beds. Whenever someone had to go to the bathroom and the others woke up, we would always try to go for the head too, from the scream we could then tell if it was a burglar or not. Luckily no one ever got hit, but damn if there ever was a burglar, we would've done him in good. It was also a good lesson in stealth growing up. I'm sorry for the old geezer, but what if it had been a real burglar? You never know when they might nab the iWhatever or the plasma screen or the Christmas themed kebab grill you took that loan for. I'm sure the deceased son would agree that such matters need to be taken seriously.
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming.
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Then you said I was wrong and I agreed.
E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol
If you stopped there, but you did not.
I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself:
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits".
The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk.
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote: This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
A. so if 2 armed gangs have a shootout you think you will "protect" yourself with a gun in that scenario? tip: running away is 10000x more protection then pointing a gun at several armed gangsters.
B. where is your police?
C. rape happens evrywhere. very often without any major weapons involved.
D. again police? also you really have no right to defend yourself?
sad story this is. but what i find weird is the "shoot first,ask later" attitude which is totally retarded when the target isnt pointing a gun at you too and that someone that has so much expirience actually does that,he just should know better. i can understand a scared housewive acting this way. he shouldve known how to deal with a situation like that. either he is in a much worse condition then the son said, was a terrible cop or the rush of beeing the hero just one time again took over.
With the advent of technology, such news travel fast and with yellow journalism, it gets more sensational.
IMO, to grant everyone freedom, freedom will be encroached upon indirectly because there is no such thing as absolute freedom as no man is an island. This is the price to pay for freedom especially because human acts irrationally and rashly.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
this is my exact thoughts when anything gun-related occurs, i just don't see why anyone would shoot to kill, especially if it is a trained person, like a cop. why not shoot in the leg, shoulder, arm? pointing a gun at another persons head is beyond my understanding, for any reason other than real, tangible sense of your life being in danger.
i know it's not entirely related to the subject, but it just leaves me dumb-fucked every time :/
On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either.
Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Then you said I was wrong and I agreed.
E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol
If you stopped there, but you did not.
I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself:
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits".
The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk.
This Twinkle guy argue with everyone in every single threads lol, just ignore him.
Well it really hard to retract this law when it already implemented for such a long period of times. R.I.P for the son. I am thankful that I lived in a country that doesn't allow possession of guns, all these news just make it scarier.
This is a disaster of epic proportions. Still, an investigation has to be made to determine foul play. I hope the father's mental condition is not sharp enough to recognize the full weight of this tragedy. Otherwise, he would no doubt kill himself also.
On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote: [quote] Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard.
You're right, I stand corrected.
But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury?
It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't).
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
Twinkle, this was the argument:
essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs.
Then you said I was wrong and I agreed.
E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol
If you stopped there, but you did not.
I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself:
Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits"
Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits".
The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk.
This Twinkle guy argue with everyone in every single threads lol, just ignore him.
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote: Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything.
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote: Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything.
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote: Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything.
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
Either way, you guys should stop worrying about guns and instead worry about diseases. You are many magnitudes more likely to die that way.
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote: Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
that's why denmark has a 0.9 crime rate comparated to 5.0 in the US because gun control doesn't do anything.
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
Either way, you guys should stop worrying about guns and instead worry about diseases. You are many magnitudes more likely to die that way.
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
Im not sure if this case can really helps the case for stricter gun laws (although the US definitely needs them). As an ex-cop even under strictish gun laws he could keep his weapon so this isn't much more than a personal tragedy.
I am an American, I am a Texan, and I live in our biggest city, houston. I do not own a gun of any kind nor does anyone in my family, as most of them are from up north where it is (more so then here) looked down upon. Lets please just remember that this issue is not black and white. Nor can it be solved with a simple issue like "this is why people should not have guns". You have to understand the deep seeded fear and mistrust of government, that is taught to many of our kids especially in the south. Not mistrust that the government will need to be fought in some kind of battle( were not THAT stupid) but mistrust of the government to keep us safe or more accurately the police. In many places, especially poorer neighborhoods. When I was a student I lived in the third ward as it is right across from the university of houston. Look it up, it is one of the worst areas in our country. The police dont come when you call them from there, and if they do it is often hours or even DAYS later. Again, I personally do not own a gun, but I do know many people personally( I realize that personal anecdotes do not mean much) who have had there apartments broken into some of them MULTIPLE times by the same robbers. These people were only warded off by verbal threats of "Ive got a gun get the fuck out or I will shoot". so maybe the question to be asked here is not should people have or not have guns but WHY do people feel they need them and what can be done to remedy that?
How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle. It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
People see these threads and think every other person in the USA is a murderer. "If it bleeds it leads". For every story about a father killing a son on accident, there is another story about how someone defended their life with their gun.
if only this were true
And even if it´s true, defending lives with a gun means killing the threat most of the time. It´s funny how everyone divers between killing your son and a burglar, in the end it´s like there´s death sentence on thievery in the US.
On October 12 2012 22:00 BlitzerSC wrote: How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle. It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
I don't own a pistol or assault rifle, so your moronic generalization is already false.
That's like me saying "No wonder Italy is broke! Every single government official is a part of the mob, and the population is nothing but lazy bums who sit around eating pasta!".
On October 12 2012 22:00 BlitzerSC wrote: How can people be so surprised ? This happened in AMERICA ( United States of America ) the country where every single average Joe has a motherfucking pistol or assault rifle. It was doomed to happen, sooner or later, and it will happen again if the gun law won't be changed.
Yes, it's a tragic incident but you should have expected it.
thats right sir. EVERY SINGLE AVG JOE has a pistol or assault rifle, without exception!
I can see you have done your homework here, carry on my good man.
On October 12 2012 21:52 Goozen wrote: Im not sure if this case can really helps the case for stricter gun laws (although the US definitely needs them). As an ex-cop even under strictish gun laws he could keep his weapon so this isn't much more than a personal tragedy.
On October 12 2012 22:10 Cheerio wrote: why the fuck did he shoot him right in the head if he thought it was a burglar? He could have injured him, isnt it what policemen are taught to do?
I believe that policemen are actually trained to kill, because they should never pull a weapon unless in the absolute dire need to and if they need to fire, that its an assurance to drop the person. Also the man is 71, he's probably playing with a full deck anymore.
This story sounds fishy to me. Can I play devil's advocate? I think the father shot the son on purpose and tried to cover it up. I still remember when Marvin Gaye's father shot his son in their own home over a dispute.
I agree that it is a mentality problem, not a gun problem.
Why? In Switzerland it's also quite easy to get a gun... Or you have one from the Military service... Yet still just about no one thinks about shooting a burglar. Maybe because its stupid and barbaric, maybe because we are all cowards, maybe because the cost of a live is higher than the cost of a Notebook or TV....
Funny. Something like this happened in my hometown last month, except it was another cop who shot the son of another cop thinking he was a burglar. Turns out the kid was autistic and confused...
On October 12 2012 22:09 BlitzerSC wrote: I thought that hyberboles were still taught in school. I guess I was wrong.
Apparently not in your school, because using hyperbole to justify your otherwise invalid argument is inappropriate.
The hyperbole wasn't the part that justified the argument, just like putting words in italic doesn't justify your faulty statement.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
Well that's how it is now isn't it. We're all so individualistic and selfish, shooting at people is just fine because our own life is worth a thousand others. Especially if they're poor.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
Getting hurt is something else than getting instantly murdered. Who the fuck shoots a burglar in the head anyway? Not even a warning shot.. not even a non fatal shot... nope.. just straight for the head.
On October 12 2012 22:09 BlitzerSC wrote: I thought that hyberboles were still taught in school. I guess I was wrong.
Apparently not in your school, because using hyperbole to justify your otherwise invalid argument is inappropriate.
"This bag weights a ton, I can't carry it !" "INVALID ARGUMENT, in fact it only weights 3Kg"
So if I switch "every single" with "a lot of" then my argument suddenly become valid ? :|
No, what I mean is your underlying argument about gun ownership implying this unnecessary gun death is invalid at face value, and you brushing it off as *just* hyperbole (but still implying that you've made a valid point looking past the exaggeration) is incorrect, because there's data on both sides of the gun control issue. Giving someone a gun doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to do something stupid like this. There is not a causal relationship between more guns and more gun-related deaths. You can even check out some data here (specifically, the table): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
On October 12 2012 22:09 BlitzerSC wrote: I thought that hyberboles were still taught in school. I guess I was wrong.
Apparently not in your school, because using hyperbole to justify your otherwise invalid argument is inappropriate.
The hyperbole wasn't the part that justified the argument, just like putting words in italic doesn't justify your faulty statement.
The hyperbole was attempting to justify it, because it's an argument that more guns in America = more needless deaths, and there's data on both sides of that argument, so simply saying that everyone having a gun means that it makes sense that this guy was wrongfully shot is ridiculous (as opposed to any other country that has a smaller percentage of guns, this scenario can't happen? that's absurd. it's the man's fault, not the fact that more guns exist in this country).
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
Getting hurt is something else than getting instantly murdered. Who the fuck shoots a burglar in the head anyway? Not even a warning shot.. not even a non fatal shot... nope.. just straight for the head.
And if he is armed, then what? It's actually very likely that a burglar is armed in the united states. So you shoot him in the leg and then he shoots you in the head, great idea... not even police are taught to shoot to intimidate or shoot to disable. This guy was a retired cop so he had been instructed to shoot to kill for his entire life. If I was put in a situation where I had to shoot a burglar, it would be his head.
This debate has been brought up here a million times and it always seems like Denmark and Netherlands (among a few other european nations) are at the extreme opposite end of Americans on gun control. You aren't going to change my mind just like I'm not going to change yours, but just put yourself in this situation for one second. That might be what actually changes your mind, I dunno.
This will really scare kids into not sneaking in and out of the house to avoid getting grounded. Might end up catching a slug, way worse than getting grounded.
I think people have to remember that this is the USA. Not some other country that you refer to that also have the opportunity own guns and nothing goes wrong. It is a violent country.
I have heard of so many cases from the US where the burglars arent just stealing your shit when they break in, but they will beat, torture, and even kill you if they discover that somebody is home. I understand that he shot first, but he shouldnt have gone for the head. He should have made a leg shot.
If this actually was a burgler with a history of violence etc. I bet nobody would hear and care for the guy who died. I for one wouldnt.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
Getting hurt is something else than getting instantly murdered. Who the fuck shoots a burglar in the head anyway? Not even a warning shot.. not even a non fatal shot... nope.. just straight for the head.
And if he is armed, then what? It's actually very likely that a burglar is armed in the united states. So you shoot him in the leg and then he shoots you in the head, great idea... not even police are taught to shoot to intimidate or shoot to disable. This guy was a retired cop so he had been instructed to shoot to kill for his entire life. If I was put in a situation where I had to shoot a burglar, it would be his head.
This debate has been brought up here a million times and it always seems like Denmark and Netherlands (among a few other european nations) are at the extreme opposite end of Americans on gun control. You aren't going to change my mind just like I'm not going to change yours, but just put yourself in this situation for one second. That might be what actually changes your mind, I dunno.
What kind of situation is that... kill him because he might kill you first. Honestly I dont know how things go in America and I understand your reasoning. Ultimately it makes sense ( sort of), but no matter how you look at it thats just a completely fucked up situation.
Such a sad story. Just goes to show that when guns are involved, shit can happen even in if the user is a highly trained person. Still, though I am generally in favor of gun control, I still fully accept that ex-cops need guns. It's a matter of being prepared if a criminal comes back looking for revenge.
Isn´t that what guns are supposed to do? To kill each other? So I see nothing wrong here besides stupidity to shoot without even knowing for sure who is behind the door or wearing a mask... and everyone jumps out of their seat for this death instead of really speaking for those who dont have a voice.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
Pretty sure that last sentence is how this happened. Good to know that this can happen again.
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
So basically he should not have been deemed sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun?
That's what I got out of this. That the man has been mentally scarred and gun laws should have prevented him from owning a firearm.
I don't want to start any big argument because the gun control issue is very divisive and their are valid points on both sides but shit happens. And these accidents are bound to happen and shouldn't be used as evidence to force an entire nation to relinquish their personal weapons.
People get killed by TVs falling too. And slip in the shower. Accidents happen.
Instead of arguing based on these small examples, argue against or for gun control on principal, where, both sides have valid points.
Again, I feel bad for these people. Identify the target first before shooting.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
Getting hurt is something else than getting instantly murdered. Who the fuck shoots a burglar in the head anyway? Not even a warning shot.. not even a non fatal shot... nope.. just straight for the head.
A cop who is surrounded by violence at work shoots first and asks questions later. Although I disagree with his actions, I think I just gave perfectly good evidence for why he did what he did.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
Don't you understand this is exactly why this happened? The "shoot and ask later" mentality is beyond retarded.
This whole story is just awful. I can't imagine how the father must feel like... I don't think I could live with that on my conscience.
On October 12 2012 23:09 Sbrubbles wrote: Such a sad story. Just goes to show that when guns are involved, shit can happen even in if the user is a highly trained person. Still, though I am generally in favor of gun control, I still fully accept that ex-cops need guns. It's a matter of being prepared if a criminal comes back looking for revenge.
What makes cops special? Normal people have enemies just as well as cops. So by your argument shouldn't all people be allowed to defend themselves from their past?
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
On October 12 2012 22:10 Cheerio wrote: why the fuck did he shoot him right in the head if he thought it was a burglar? He could have injured him, isnt it what policemen are taught to do?
I believe that policemen are actually trained to kill, because they should never pull a weapon unless in the absolute dire need to and if they need to fire, that its an assurance to drop the person. Also the man is 71, he's probably playing with a full deck anymore.
Not here (or in most places outside the US, I assume). Sure, it protects the cop but completely ignores the rights of the other person.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
That's one fucked up mentality right there... mr macho man lol .
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
That's one fucked up mentality right there... mr macho man lol .
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
That's one fucked up mentality right there... mr macho man lol .
And those kind of people are allowed to own guns. Frightening.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
That's one fucked up mentality right there... mr macho man lol .
And those kind of people are allowed to own guns. Frightening.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
btw to all those that say this only happened because there are guns and they should be banned are silly. To your logic, cars should also be banned because car crashes happen all too often. Many people die from car crashes all the time. And people drink and drive all the time so cars should definitely be restricted to use or banned from society.
I don't get waht's so hard to understand. Gun or not, the father in this situation made a mistake. A huge mistake. Yes, he should have identified the "thief" first before he shot him. I don't have the facts so I can't say anything for certain.
Just a thought, maybe he's just an adrenaline junkie and wanted to kill a break in thief so he can brag to his friends that he popped a robber. So that's the father's mistake. Not the issue of guns. Either way he could have knifed his son in the head. He's so silly in the first place he could have done anything to kill him.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
btw to all those that say this only happened because there are guns and they should be banned are silly. To your logic, cars should also be banned because car crashes happen all too often. Many people die from car crashes all the time. And people drink and drive all the time so cars should definitely be restricted to use or banned from society.
I don't get waht's so hard to understand. Gun or not, the father in this situation made a mistake. A huge mistake. Yes, he should have identified the "thief" first before he shot him. I don't have the facts so I can't say anything for certain.
Just a thought, maybe he's just an adrenaline junkie and wanted to kill a break in thief so he can brag to his friends that he popped a robber. So that's the father's mistake. Not the issue of guns. Either way he could have knifed his son in the head. He's so silly in the first place he could have done anything to kill him.
I agree that people overreact to any sort of accidental gun-related death, but the part about him being an adrenaline junky I'm not so sure about. I doubt many 77 year old men have the health to even consider being such.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
btw to all those that say this only happened because there are guns and they should be banned are silly. To your logic, cars should also be banned because car crashes happen all too often. Many people die from car crashes all the time. And people drink and drive all the time so cars should definitely be restricted to use or banned from society.
I don't get waht's so hard to understand. Gun or not, the father in this situation made a mistake. A huge mistake. Yes, he should have identified the "thief" first before he shot him. I don't have the facts so I can't say anything for certain.
Just a thought, maybe he's just an adrenaline junkie and wanted to kill a break in thief so he can brag to his friends that he popped a robber. So that's the father's mistake. Not the issue of guns. Either way he could have knifed his son in the head. He's so silly in the first place he could have done anything to kill him.
That wasn't even the case. Also even if he thought it was a burglar, he wasn't even armed. Killing force was excessive. For example, a flesh wound would have been sufficient, it would have been 1 trip to the ER and some hard feelings at the end of the accident, better than the guy's life. That is all people were arguing.
On October 12 2012 14:52 Mambo wrote: Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european.
From what i see it, they shoot to kill because they are afraid to identify first? I mean maybe they are afraid that the "intruder" also has a weapon and that they would get the first shot in if the father didnt use the element of surprise.
implying police don't shoot to kill, ask questions later on a regular basis
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
btw to all those that say this only happened because there are guns and they should be banned are silly. To your logic, cars should also be banned because car crashes happen all too often. Many people die from car crashes all the time. And people drink and drive all the time so cars should definitely be restricted to use or banned from society.
I don't get waht's so hard to understand. Gun or not, the father in this situation made a mistake. A huge mistake. Yes, he should have identified the "thief" first before he shot him. I don't have the facts so I can't say anything for certain.
Just a thought, maybe he's just an adrenaline junkie and wanted to kill a break in thief so he can brag to his friends that he popped a robber. So that's the father's mistake. Not the issue of guns. Either way he could have knifed his son in the head. He's so silly in the first place he could have done anything to kill him.
Knifing your own son sounds extremely legit. In the head too.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
In most cases you will have to make a decision well before you know how the situation would develop. So you will shoot the petty thief as well the rapist. Or if you're unlucky the cop serving a no-knock warrant. Or your daughter's new boyfriend.
The problem with guns (and the idea of going for a kill every time) is uncertainty. You will fire at innocent people sometimes. Either because you made a mistake or they did.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
That's one fucked up mentality right there... mr macho man lol .
And those kind of people are allowed to own guns. Frightening.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
If someone robs you with a knife and proceeds to rape your family are you just going to stand there and watch? Good luck. Self-defense is self-defense. Whether you protecting yourself with a knife, a baseball bat, golf club or a gun.
btw to all those that say this only happened because there are guns and they should be banned are silly. To your logic, cars should also be banned because car crashes happen all too often. Many people die from car crashes all the time. And people drink and drive all the time so cars should definitely be restricted to use or banned from society.
I don't get waht's so hard to understand. Gun or not, the father in this situation made a mistake. A huge mistake. Yes, he should have identified the "thief" first before he shot him. I don't have the facts so I can't say anything for certain.
Just a thought, maybe he's just an adrenaline junkie and wanted to kill a break in thief so he can brag to his friends that he popped a robber. So that's the father's mistake. Not the issue of guns. Either way he could have knifed his son in the head. He's so silly in the first place he could have done anything to kill him.
You cannot compare a car to a gun. A car's primary goal is transportation and for most people (target/disk sport shooters the exception) a gun's primary goal is to kill. Now don't get me wrong though, I'm not a person who feels strongly about the subject and I think the US has already gotten to a point where a reverse of the current situation would be impossible, but I do feel regulation can be much stricter.
Ex cops for example should never find themselves in an environment where they need a gun. Bad guys trying to get revenge is something that can be pretty scary though I admit, but cops are trained making a gun far more effective than in the hands of an amateur.
I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training?
On October 13 2012 00:15 Magnious wrote: I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training?
Disabling someone with a gun is not as simple as it seems - shoulder and leg shots can easily be fatal from blood loss. No idea about training, though - you'd think he'd take the time to identify the target first.
On October 13 2012 00:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: how was he supposed to know that he wasn't in danger?
i mean, this sucks and its a tragedy and all, but why are we trying to twist this into yet another gun-control debate?
Should everyone's policy necessarily be "shoot first, ask questions later"? It surely depends on the context. He just woke up, it's late at night, and he's tired. He clearly wasn't aware that his son was out and was coming back, or else he would (should) have considered that policy. Of course, he may be on edge because he may live in a dangerous neighborhood, etc. But I don't see him being justified as shooting and killing anyone who wants to come in to his house- out of the argument "how was I supposed to know he wasn't a threat?".
Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth.
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth.
Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed.
On October 12 2012 14:52 Mambo wrote: Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european.
And agreed upon by a biased European. Guns are for the military with the purpose to maintain order, in my opinion not even police should be allowed to have guns. Unfortunately we have no choice due to guns being relatively easy to come by for people with ill intent.
If it is forbidden by any civilian to have guns, however - I can assure you a lot less people will die from guns.
Oh and by the way - if I find a burglar in my house I simply bash him out with my baseball bat or my kitchen knife. Because these weapons are much more intimate, killing someone with them 'by accident' is much less likely.
I don't think it's a big problem because it seems like freak accident. If it's more common then there is nothing to do as gun laws will remain the same and likewise for intruder laws.
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth.
Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed.
of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house?
i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one.
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth.
Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed.
of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house?
i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one.
Well, for one, he doesn't actually know if there's an intruder. Not verifying that is a bit of an error.
On October 13 2012 00:39 Callynn wrote: in my opinion not even police should be allowed to have guns.
You should be out there then, police the public without your gun, see how well you do with unruly people with larger weapons then your 9m pea shooter you left at home.
On October 13 2012 00:39 Callynn wrote: in my opinion not even police should be allowed to have guns.
You should be out there then, police the public without your gun, see how well you do with unruly people with larger weapons then your 9m pea shooter you left at home.
For the sake of argument:
How exactly are you going to police the public with your gun? If you use it, you're killing someone, which isn't exactly controlling a situation. Oh, sure, you can threaten with it - but you can threaten with non-lethal weapons that the culprit knows you can freely use on them.
If people have 'larger weapons' (firearms, in this case) that require you to have lethal force on-hand, then there's already a problem.
On October 12 2012 14:52 Mambo wrote: Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european.
From what i see it, they shoot to kill because they are afraid to identify first? I mean maybe they are afraid that the "intruder" also has a weapon and that they would get the first shot in if the father didnt use the element of surprise.
Well, this is what you get when everyone is allowed to carry arms.
Oh and by the way - if I find a burglar in my house I simply bash him out with my baseball bat or my kitchen knife. Because these weapons are much more intimate, killing someone with them 'by accident' is much less likely
I would tell him to calm down and ask him to leave, with our without what he has stolen. It's just stuff people, not worth killing over.
On October 13 2012 00:35 On_Slaught wrote: Really tragic for the family.
I don't understand why you should shoot when you weren't sure of who it is.
EVEN THEN, you don't go for a fucking head shot from the start (esp if you haven't done the former).
bingo. The saddest part of this entire thing is why didn't the father even attempt to identify the 'intruder' before deciding to shoot him in the head...As a cop, shouldn't he have been extensively trained in this? Really sad situation for the family.
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that?
they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth.
Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed.
of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house?
i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one.
Killing someone that you don't know is an intruder, by shooting them with a head shot is obviously the wrong one. It's definately not his best choice. And yes, we can be quick to judge, because there are other ways to handle a situation, epecially when it's your son coming through the back door, instead of shoot to kill.
I don't know what kind of country the US is, but here even though its unsafe as hell no one would break into your house just to shoot you... so I don't see why this man couldn't just check/see who the fuck it was who came in through his door and THEN shoot <.<. And by check/see I mean take a fucking look and see if you recognize the person before you shoot them.
On October 12 2012 14:53 heliusx wrote: Jeez that's one fucked up story. But why are you asking why they had firearms? You know as well as I it's their right guaranteed to them. You shouldn't use a sensational story to further your view on others.
Ah, but it is inevitable that the vast majority of EU people will do exactly what you said they shouldn't.
Shooting a possible burgler or whatever without challenging him first is really stupid. Even if the this man owned a gun I am still puzzled where he kept it and if it was loaded, when he was able to respond so fast. So this man had a loaded gun with him all the time or in an easy accesible place. That is just nonsense, if I would feel so threatend that I had to carry a gun or have it so easily accessible I would do something against the root cause instead of arming myself this way ...
The gun is only a tool for the murderer. Obviously, this father had some serious mental issues that pushed him over the edge like this. It is unfortunate.
You know as well as I it's their right guaranteed to them.
I think I also have the right to go arround dressed like a clown, but this wouldnt stop other people from asking why I do this. Having the right doing something and actually doing something are two different pairs of shoes.
Eh, its a tragic accident. But we should just have a full-fledged gun control debate on TL to resolve the issue everyone seems to want to talk about, complete with all the statistics ever made. I feel like that would resolve most problems. All these threads devolve into bickering of some form or another, random statements that aren't fact-checked, anecdotal evidence...and then the whole thing gets repeated later.
But then again I doubt anything conclusive would happen, as a cursory glance at Wikipedia's entry for "Gun control" reads:
University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not,[38] that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.
But its been 8 years. So there should be something new by now, right?
On October 13 2012 00:15 Magnious wrote: I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training?
Well we're talking about an ex-cop who went through rigid training to be allowed to carry a gun as a policeman. Clearly it's not a problem of some "idiots" being irresponsible about having a gun. If it was well here's a newsflash: As a civilian you probably won't get anywhere close to or even better than an ex police officer about handling guns. If that's really the case it's not about a minority but probably the vast majority.
Of course the situation is retarded and so is the legislation but guess what, you've got things like that in every country about something cultural people feel very strongly about. We're allowed to drive 300km/h on the Autobahn in germany. Most people outside Germany probably consider it ridiculous as well, especially if you take away the "aaaaaw, I'd really love to do that once in my lifetime as well"-argument and you're probably left with a bunch of guys telling you it's retardedly dangerous and stupid on a daily basis. Guess what, we're still allowed to drive 300km/h because we like our cars and we like driving fast while being perfectly aware of the situation. There's nothing more to it than "buuuuuut we like it so much". Same with guns. If you're fine with those accidents feel free to have guns in your country the way you've got them right now. It's not going to change (even if it was to change it'd take a while until there's way fewer guns around) and if you're against it you're probably best to move somewhere else. There's plenty of places you can life outside the US that have the same living standard.
Not saying you shouldn't try to optimize things or change stuff that's just wrong but this issue won't change. It just won't because it's to deeply into peoples minds.
I've personally never seen a gun, nor do I ever want to. The fact that so many people have boggles my mind. They inherently have destructive qualities that far outweigh any positive benefit they can provide.
If someone's breaking into my place, the alarm will go off, the insurance will pay for whatever they take. Not worth taking someone's life for generic stuff or risking my own life. Yes, it is all just about generic stuff because people breaking in aren't looking for confrontation. They're hoping no one's home anyway... either that or they're your family.
I wonder if he panicked... Pathetic. A cop that is scared enough to instantly shoot the traspasser in the head without even seeing his face. He could have just called the cops while holding the guy hostage. But stupid stuff always happens and it is possible that this actully happened but he could also be lieing. Have to wait for more.
Edit: Can people stfu about poeple having guns? He is a retired cop not some random person.
On October 13 2012 02:06 Dienosore wrote: The gun is only a tool for the murderer. Obviously, this father had some serious mental issues that pushed him over the edge like this. It is unfortunate.
I think its unfortunate that you just believe things based off your feelings. How do you know if he had serious mental issues or not? Unless I missed it in the article or something, you should try not talking out of your ass.
You know as well as I it's their right guaranteed to them.
I think I also have the right to go arround dressed like a clown, but this wouldnt stop other people from asking why I do this. Having the right doing something and actually doing something are two different pairs of shoes.
I was alluding to the fact that he was using this story to start round #212 of gun debate on tlnet. Which I believe is completely pointless. Every single time it's round and round of people ignoring each other and posting their opinions. And with a few pages it becomes a ban trap because people get all passionate. Let's also no forget the obligatory america bashing from europe.
Its strange that the cop shot before asking the burglar to surrender. Doesnt make sense, and yes. Retired cops still have their guns.
Being a retired cop, i would think he would have played this ALOT smarter. But then again, if he is retired, he started atleast 20+ years ago.. when it was ALOT easier to join a police department.
On October 13 2012 00:15 Magnious wrote: I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training?
Well we're talking about an ex-cop who went through rigid training to be allowed to carry a gun as a policeman. Clearly it's not a problem of some "idiots" being irresponsible about having a gun. If it was well here's a newsflash: As a civilian you probably won't get anywhere close to or even better than an ex police officer about handling guns. If that's really the case it's not about a minority but probably the vast majority.
Of course the situation is retarded and so is the legislation but guess what, you've got things like that in every country about something cultural people feel very strongly about. We're allowed to drive 300km/h on the Autobahn in germany. Most people outside Germany probably consider it ridiculous as well, especially if you take away the "aaaaaw, I'd really love to do that once in my lifetime as well"-argument and you're probably left with a bunch of guys telling you it's retardedly dangerous and stupid on a daily basis. Guess what, we're still allowed to drive 300km/h because we like our cars and we like driving fast while being perfectly aware of the situation. There's nothing more to it than "buuuuuut we like it so much". Same with guns. If you're fine with those accidents feel free to have guns in your country the way you've got them right now. It's not going to change (even if it was to change it'd take a while until there's way fewer guns around) and if you're against it you're probably best to move somewhere else. There's plenty of places you can life outside the US that have the same living standard.
Not saying you shouldn't try to optimize things or change stuff that's just wrong but this issue won't change. It just won't because it's to deeply into peoples minds.
I believe the ex cop had a plan to murder his son, and used this as an excuse to do so, to get a lesser punishment like self defense or something. He knows how the system works, hes been working as a murder investigator for 40 years! The thing Im wondering most about is, how did he wake up? Have you even been woken up by someone walking in the back door, I sure have not been. And why not ask who it is before shooting the guy, like yelling "WHOS THERE?! I GOT A GUN!" I know it might been dark, and he might have a bad eye sight due to old age. But if that was the case, how did he manage to hit the head? And why did he even aim for the head, instead of the body?
There has to be more to this story than what we've been told....
1) Father falls asleep while bumming in the couch watching Jay Leno 2) Son leaves house 3) Son comes back to the house, enters through the back door 4) Father mistakes son for intruder and shoots him
Ok so... My first question is, was the father still asleep on the couch, or somewhere else, when he was woken up by a man coming in the backdoor?
Where was the gun before his father picked it up?
Where was the father sitting/standing when he pulled the trigger, and where was his son sitting/standing when he was shot? If he had the gun next to him while he was asleep on the couch, then there's something else going on for sure. I've grown up around guns, and no one I've ever known keeps a firearm on their end table next to the couch...
It just seems really strange to me that 1) a 77 year old man could be woken up by the opening and closing of a door alone. Most old people I know have really_really bad hearing. The son, knowing his father was already asleep when he left(?) was probably doing his best to be quiet as possible, right? 2) That this old man was able to retrieve his firearm, point, and shoot before his son noticed what was going on and was able to cry out.
Has the old man been evaluated for any signs of the onset of Alzheimer's, PTSD, or dementia? He was a homicide cop for a lot of years and no doubt saw a lot of crazy bad stuff in his time. Alzheimer's and dementia can go un-diagnosed for years until the signs are incredibly prevalent (I know because my family has experienced both).
If the father is diagnosed with any of those diseases, then this shooting is about a lot more than "why dem 'muricans have 'em guns."
True Story about a similar situation my Grandpa experienced:
His youngest daughter was a sleepwalker. One night, my grandpa woke up to the sound of stuff rattling in the living room. He grabbed his 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot and went to see about it. Thankfully, he didn't pull the trigger before finding out who was in his house. Otherwise, life would sure be different for our family today.
I think its also important to note that only weeks earlier, my grandfather's house had been broken into. They stole several (6 or 7 i think) of his guns. So, my grandfather had plenty of cause to be suspicious of someone outside of his family being in the house that night.
The moral of the story is that not everyone in America with a gun is itching to pull the trigger on someone. When things like this happen, its a reflection of the individual pulling the trigger rather than a reflection of our citizens as a whole or the freedoms we enjoy.
On October 13 2012 00:15 Magnious wrote: I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training?
Well we're talking about an ex-cop who went through rigid training to be allowed to carry a gun as a policeman. Clearly it's not a problem of some "idiots" being irresponsible about having a gun. If it was well here's a newsflash: As a civilian you probably won't get anywhere close to or even better than an ex police officer about handling guns. If that's really the case it's not about a minority but probably the vast majority.
Of course the situation is retarded and so is the legislation but guess what, you've got things like that in every country about something cultural people feel very strongly about. We're allowed to drive 300km/h on the Autobahn in germany. Most people outside Germany probably consider it ridiculous as well, especially if you take away the "aaaaaw, I'd really love to do that once in my lifetime as well"-argument and you're probably left with a bunch of guys telling you it's retardedly dangerous and stupid on a daily basis. Guess what, we're still allowed to drive 300km/h because we like our cars and we like driving fast while being perfectly aware of the situation. There's nothing more to it than "buuuuuut we like it so much". Same with guns. If you're fine with those accidents feel free to have guns in your country the way you've got them right now. It's not going to change (even if it was to change it'd take a while until there's way fewer guns around) and if you're against it you're probably best to move somewhere else. There's plenty of places you can life outside the US that have the same living standard.
Not saying you shouldn't try to optimize things or change stuff that's just wrong but this issue won't change. It just won't because it's to deeply into peoples minds.
I don't understand why you quoted me here...
Me neither, wasn't the point why he shot his son in the head instead of warning and then disabling him? Because that's the thing that confuses me too? Who aims at the head if you are not a killer or at war... especially with police training.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
This isn't the wild west, it's real life. Some people who rob you will also injure/rape/kill you/your family. You think they care about you?
On October 12 2012 15:22 TheVanillaCoke wrote: Jesus people... He's not some gun toting psychopath.
This guy was a HOMICIDE detective for 40 years. Do you have any idea what that can do to a guy? If you think examining a homicide doesn't leave scar tissue in the brain, You're crazy. This guy might have had PTSD, he might have had a flash back of some fucked up shit he saw in his 40 years of homicide, and when his son came in the back door, His instincts took over and he cracked.
One more reason to restrict access to firearms for civilians.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
pretty much my thoughts exactly. people's willingness to take a life with minimal cause/justification is depressing to me.
On October 13 2012 02:06 Dienosore wrote: The gun is only a tool for the murderer. Obviously, this father had some serious mental issues that pushed him over the edge like this. It is unfortunate.
I think its unfortunate that you just believe things based off your feelings. How do you know if he had serious mental issues or not? Unless I missed it in the article or something, you should try not talking out of your ass.
if you're willing to shoot a complete stranger, even one in your house, without either warning him or asking questions first, then you definitely have serious mental issues. and its quite obvious he didn't even give the "burglar" a second to stop or say a single word - if he did he would have probably recognized his son's voice and therefore not shot him.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
This isn't the wild west, it's real life. Some people who rob you will also injure/rape/kill you/your family. You think they care about you?
Unless you're in a really shitty neighborhood, isn't owning a gun way more likely to end up causing harm to you and your family (like this father killing his son, or people pulling a gun on a robber who will then end up pulling a gun too and shoot back because the situation changed to kill or be killed, when he otherwise would have just fled), instead of actually protecting you and your family from murderers and rapists? Are there any statistics on that?
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
This isn't the wild west, it's real life. Some people who rob you will also injure/rape/kill you/your family. You think they care about you?
Unless you're in a really shitty neighborhood, isn't owning a gun way more likely to end up causing harm to you and your family (like this father killing his son, or people pulling a gun on a robber who will then end up pulling a gun too and shoot back because the situation changed to kill or be killed, when he otherwise would have just fled), instead of actually protecting you and your family from murderers and rapists? Are there any statistics on that?
I doubt a robber who has a gun on him will flee from the scene... Why would he have a gun in the first place?
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
This isn't the wild west, it's real life. Some people who rob you will also injure/rape/kill you/your family. You think they care about you?
Unless you're in a really shitty neighborhood, isn't owning a gun way more likely to end up causing harm to you and your family (like this father killing his son, or people pulling a gun on a robber who will then end up pulling a gun too and shoot back because the situation changed to kill or be killed, when he otherwise would have just fled), instead of actually protecting you and your family from murderers and rapists? Are there any statistics on that?
I doubt a robber who has a gun on him will flee from the scene... Why would he have a gun in the first place?
On October 13 2012 02:06 Dienosore wrote: The gun is only a tool for the murderer. Obviously, this father had some serious mental issues that pushed him over the edge like this. It is unfortunate.
I think its unfortunate that you just believe things based off your feelings. How do you know if he had serious mental issues or not? Unless I missed it in the article or something, you should try not talking out of your ass.
Something must be seriously wrong if he shoots his own son point blank in the head. It's not what I personally consider normal behaviour, but that's just my opinion.
On October 12 2012 22:20 Nizaris wrote: It is ridiculous that you can even shoot some1 if your life isn't in any danger.
I think its ridiculous that you think you should be able to waltz into someones home without fear of getting hurt, but both of our views are just opinions. However, I think yours is the more wrong one here but posts like these contribute very little to what actually happened here...
gun related death in your country shows that you're wrong and i'm not.
Some1 robs you here and you kill him, you'll go to jail for murder as it should be. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
This isn't the wild west, it's real life. Some people who rob you will also injure/rape/kill you/your family. You think they care about you?
Unless you're in a really shitty neighborhood, isn't owning a gun way more likely to end up causing harm to you and your family (like this father killing his son, or people pulling a gun on a robber who will then end up pulling a gun too and shoot back because the situation changed to kill or be killed, when he otherwise would have just fled), instead of actually protecting you and your family from murderers and rapists? Are there any statistics on that?
You know robbers come to good neighborhoods right? That's where all the goods are at.
On October 12 2012 15:03 Mowr wrote: No surprise really, family members are the ones who get shot when you have guns in the home to protect from burglars.
Yeah I am of the same opinion and I do believe it has been proven in studies? That said I wouldn't really mind having a gun myself if I lived in a rough place.
But shooting an unidentified person? That seems crazy to me. What if the girl next door is sleep walking, or as in this case it's your son coming home. It's so stupid it brings my thoughts to darwinism and to why I believe in that.
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Absolutely not. Even if it was a regular bugler he would have been in huge shit for killing the guy.
On October 12 2012 15:10 DigiGnar wrote: There was something in Houston today. (thursday) A cop shot dead a guy that "was charging" at him yet the guy was like six feet away with no weapons. A lot of people are pissed, albeit what got the cops called on him in the first place. (usual fight with father, molested his step-son or something)
Also, if you create more laws, it's just more time in jail. Laws do not prevent, just discourages.
Nope. Europe has "proved" it. Prohibition works when it comes to guns, because guns aren't easy to make like alcohol or weed.
Canada also proves it.
Been to detroit, first day on vacation there gunshots right outside my hotel room. And that is in the nice part of the city, highest murder rate in all of North America. 500 feet away in Windsor, safest place in the land. Reason being, no guns.
And it is not just that example, it is the same across the ENTIRE USA CANADA BORDER for EVERY city. It is really just fucking sad that so many people are in support of gun freedom when it causes a lot more deaths than it saves every day. You just do not see violence in major Canadian cities. But the second you take a trip to the USA you just get the aura that someone is going to shoot you randomly.
This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
"Less deaths" isn't reason enough to prohibit guns. Many americans want to be in charge of their own life as much as possible. They don't want to wait passively, hoping that the intruder isn't a murderer/rapist or that the police will be quick enough. They want to take the matter into their own hands and defend their home actively. I completely respect that. It's an emotion-based reasoning and statistics might show that they will end up doing more harm than good to themselves, but ideas matter and you can't always enslave ideas and freedom to safety statistics.
On October 12 2012 15:08 CTSChao wrote: As an American, I personally believe that personal possession of firearms should be outlawed in our country. Yet many ignorant and conspiracy theorists claim that if we don't keep guns, then there no way" to overthrow the government". That is an actual quote from a conversation that i had 2 weeks ago with a friend. Its propoganda like this from organizations such as the National Rifle Association taht make people believe that we actually need protection from the government. The last time Congress issued a moratorium on gun sales was around 2000 i believe, and was passed by a Democratic congress. After loosing their majority in the next election, they concluded that passing another bill would be political suicide. Until we get people to change their minds and for congressmen and women to stand up for whats right, not for what will get them reelected, will tragic events like these be prevented
Even if every single US citizen had a gun, they still wouldn't be able to stop the government in doing whatever they wanted.
It's really sad to hear and I really hope that one day the US will be able to kick their greediness for the sake of their own people.. guns don't protect anything, they kill things.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
To those that are genuinely prepared to continue to reasonably explain (especially over the internet) why an alternative to having such easy access to firearms for everyday citizens can be viable, I salute you. I envy your patience.
How can people ( mostly Europeans ) blame gun control when they see all these clearly sensationalized stories. Gun control works for you great, it'll do next to nothing in U.S. Its the mentality and geography, U.S. is a very ethnically and culturally diverse country, and whether you like it or not that will always create tensions and violence. Geographically speaking how easy is it to smuggle guns to country like Denmark? Now think how easy it would be for criminals to get guns in the U.S. should they be banned. Our border with Mexico has plenty of tunnels already or if you dont like underground and prefer a more scenic route just take a boat from one of our Caribbean neighbors.
Ban the guns in U.S. and only criminals will have guns. Take a country like Denmark and move it next to a couple third world countries mix in some other cultures and ethnicities and see if gun control would still produce the same results. Once again its the mentality and geography not the guns, that's why a country like Switzerland with no gun control has similar crime stats to other European countries, and a country like Russia with strict gun control laws has similar crime stats to U.S.
I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
On October 13 2012 19:49 kukarachaa wrote: How can people ( mostly Europeans ) blame gun control when they see all these clearly sensationalized stories. Gun control works for you great, it'll do next to nothing in U.S. Its the mentality and geography, U.S. is a very ethnically and culturally diverse country, and whether you like it or not that will always create tensions and violence. Geographically speaking how easy is it to smuggle guns to country like Denmark? Now think how easy it would be for criminals to get guns in the U.S. should they be banned. Our border with Mexico has plenty of tunnels already or if you dont like underground and prefer a more scenic route just take a boat from one of our Caribbean neighbors.
Ban the guns in U.S. and only criminals will have guns. Take a country like Denmark and move it next to a couple third world countries mix in some other cultures and ethnicities and see if gun control would still produce the same results. Once again its the mentality and geography not the guns, that's why a country like Switzerland with no gun control has similar crime stats to other European countries, and a country like Russia with strict gun control laws has similar crime stats to U.S.
I would also like to point out that by having guns more readily available or rather having them be more of a common place in households would be a very obvious deterrent for criminals. If I was a criminal and knew for a fact what houses did and didn't have guns in them I would clearly could to rob the ones without unless I was specifically trying to obtain one for my use, and I would do so solely because I would be putting myself in less danger.
That doesn't even take into account someone who could be on drug and acting in a completely irrational manner.
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote: Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Sorry but I do not value your life greater than household possessions. Break into my house and try to steal my shit and you will die If I have the power to do so.
Come into my home and try to steal my son's or wife's shit. I will murder you and piss on the gunshot wounds.
Actually just break into my home. you will be dead before you have a chance to see what I have to steal.
Don't you understand this is exactly why this happened? The "shoot and ask later" mentality is beyond retarded.
This whole story is just awful. I can't imagine how the father must feel like... I don't think I could live with that on my conscience.
You do realize homicide detectives don't have a lot of friends and by not many friends I mean, people would like him dead for putting a friend in jail or embarrassed. And being 40 years in the business, that would mean a lot of "non-friends".
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. By announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. Bye announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
In this example, it would be better yelled at than dead. :-/ Either way, I always call when I enter a home, any home, if my own.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
This makes me realise i really don't know how lucky I am, the fact I can walk into my own house "unannounced" and not have to worry about being shot. The fact you find it acceptable to drill this into children to prevent their death, shows the difference in cultures between other first world countries I guess.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
This makes me realise i really don't know how lucky I am, the fact I can walk into my own house "unannounced" and not have to worry about being shot. The fact you find it acceptable to drill this into children to prevent their death, shows the difference in cultures between other first world countries I guess.
I'm from Singapore, we have no guns, lol.
But the practice of announcing your entry into a home is still there. Although, the purpose has since changed to one of respect, from its practical roots.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
This makes me realise i really don't know how lucky I am, the fact I can walk into my own house "unannounced" and not have to worry about being shot. The fact you find it acceptable to drill this into children to prevent their death, shows the difference in cultures between other first world countries I guess.
I'm from Singapore, we have no guns, lol.
But the practice of announcing your entry into a home is still there. Although, the purpose has since changed to one of respect, from its practical roots.
I really should have quoted your previous post I guess, but you said your mum worked for an American organisation, then continued on with "they" so I was more referring to the US than Singapore.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
These numbers add no context to your argument. Compared to what? Total gun ownership? Using Gallup 2011 poll on gun ownershp and total USA population that works out to:
146 million Americans with one or more firearms of any size
Therefore the percentage of firearm related deaths compared to population of firearm owners in USA is: 9203 firearms related deaths ÷ 146,170,000 firearm owners x 100 = 0.00629%
Overall, I'd say America is a pretty safe country. Edit: Typo
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are doing is siting a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. Bye announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
In this example, it would be better yelled at than dead. :-/ Either way, I always call when I enter a home, any home, if my own.
.. If someone walks through a locked door without breaking it down, it's pretty likely they belong inside. I could understand your point if you had to smash a window to get inside, but he walked through a door. Sure, he could be the one criminal who is educated enough to pick a lock in short enough time to not be caught, but still so stupid he breaks into homes for his money, but logic dictates that when someone does not break into a 'secured' area, and they are in that area, they belong there.
Checking the person's identity (ie turning the god damned lights on) is called for. Killing the person is not.
But I suppose there is some merit to the idea of announcing yourself in a home where someone owns a gun. It's not nice to wake people up, but its not good to get killed either. It's bad on both sides of this one.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Exactly, the percentage of firearms related death compared to total population of gun owners is just that!
In fact, I'd say if your numbers became available, it's even a greater incentive for a civilian ownership of a gun. If American "louts" (by European standard) have been standing as a Nation since declaring independence with their "crazy" gun ownership, even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. Bye announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
In this example, it would be better yelled at than dead. :-/ Either way, I always call when I enter a home, any home, if my own.
.. If someone walks through a locked door without breaking it down, it's pretty likely they belong inside. I could understand your point if you had to smash a window to get inside, but he walked through a door. Sure, he could be the one criminal who is educated enough to pick a lock in short enough time to not be caught, but still so stupid he breaks into homes for his money, but logic dictates that when someone does not break into a 'secured' area, and they are in that area, they belong there.
Checking the person's identity (ie turning the god damned lights on) is called for. Killing the person is not.
But I suppose there is some merit to the idea of announcing yourself in a home where someone owns a gun. It's not nice to wake people up, but its not good to get killed either. It's bad on both sides of this one.
When my country was developing, we actually had cases of burglars whose only method of break-in was to open the front door. That's it! If he was caught by the occupant, he'd pretend he got the wrong house.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are doing is siting a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
The point is just that more people die due to accidents than fatal burglaries. Sadly I don;t know of any stats for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. I don't even know if those are available, and that really isn't what matters. The fact is that to the average american, they are more in danger (6x) from eating too much candy and getting diabetes than from assault by firearm.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are doing is siting a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
The point is just that more people die due to accidents than fatal burglaries. Sadly I don;t know of any stats for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. I don't even know if those are available, and that really isn't what matters. The fact is that to the average american, they are more in danger (6x) from eating too much candy and getting diabetes than from assault by firearm.
That's the thing, USA and Switzerland is living testimony that the idea that civilians can't handle the responsibility of life and death over another human being is bunk. That it's better to depend on not being detected as you place your police call, wait for police patrol and subsequent break-in to save the caller compared to grabbing the gun and shooting the home invader in the chest (accuracy achievable with practice and high survival rate of chest wound).
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
The point I'm making is despite the claim that "America is dangerous", it's not been this way even after losing in Vietnam with all the upset army veterans, infiltration by USSR spies/operatives, Iran crisis. America still remains a world super power in spite of the presence of civilian ownership of firearms!
The facts do not lie! Self-policing with regards to home invasion/personal safety scenarios works!
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
These numbers add no context to your argument. Compared to what? Total gun ownership? Using Gallup 2011 poll on gun ownershp and total USA population that works out to:
146 million Americans with one or more firearms of any size
Therefore the percentage of firearm related deaths compared to population of firearm owners in USA is: 9203 firearms related deaths ÷ 146,170,000 firearm owners x 100 = 0.00629%
Overall, I'd say America is a pretty safe country. Edit: Typo
There is actually close to 36,000 firearms related deaths according to the cdc, which is the data source of choice. Tho half of those are due to suicides interestingly enough.
Also I believe that most burglaries end up a success. With very rare instances of the two parties meeting. And you are right in that america is a safe country. Thats true. Thats why I believe the gun debate, (both sides) is a bullshit non-issue, which pales in comparison to, for example, the 600,000 people who die from heart diseases.
The media is always trying to sensationalize things, which in turn makes people freak out and not look at the big picture. And that my friend, is something we should all watch out for.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
The point I'm making is despite the claim that "America is dangerous", it's not been this way even after losing in Vietnam with all the upset army veterans, infiltration by USSR spies/operatives, Iran crisis. America still remains a world super power in spite of the presence of civilian ownership of firearms!
The facts do not lie! Self-policing with regards to home invasion/personal safety scenarios works!
What on Earth do these things have to do with each other? You know there might have been liquid water on Mars too...
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
The point I'm making is despite the claim that "America is dangerous", it's not been this way even after losing in Vietnam with all the upset army veterans, infiltration by USSR spies/operatives, Iran crisis. America still remains a world super power in spite of the presence of civilian ownership of firearms!
The facts do not lie! Self-policing with regards to home invasion/personal safety scenarios works!
...wtf does having firearms at home or domestic firearm related deaths have to do with America being a super power? I'd rather live in almost any post-industrial western nation ahead of the US because my family and I would be safer in a society where guns aren't so easily accessible and prevalent.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
The point I'm making is despite the claim that "America is dangerous", it's not been this way even after losing in Vietnam with all the upset army veterans, infiltration by USSR spies/operatives, Iran crisis. America still remains a world super power in spite of the presence of civilian ownership of firearms!
The facts do not lie! Self-policing with regards to home invasion/personal safety scenarios works!
...wtf does having firearms at home or domestic firearm related deaths have to do with America being a super power? I'd rather live in almost any post-industrial western nation ahead of the US because my family and I would be safer in a society where guns aren't so easily accessible and prevalent.
It's called previous firearms experience and lowered policing costs. Most American soldiers have been around guns since infancy, know how to safely store, arm and use them compared to non-accustomed soldiers, which traditionally put such heavy penalties to unauthorized use that accidents and misuse are more frequent. Obviously since they are military related, we will never be able see such statistics to do comparisons.
Lowered policing costs, puts a huge burden of ensuring public safety from policemen to civilians that enables Glade county sheriffa sheriff of 147 employees can police a land area of 2,000 sq/km with 3,852 homes between them.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Worst comparison I've seen in a while. America lost in Vietnam, never invaded Iran and the USSR collapsed rather than there being any large scale conflict. On top of this just because you use guns in war doesn't mean they're a good idea in the home.
The point I'm making is despite the claim that "America is dangerous", it's not been this way even after losing in Vietnam with all the upset army veterans, infiltration by USSR spies/operatives, Iran crisis. America still remains a world super power in spite of the presence of civilian ownership of firearms!
The facts do not lie! Self-policing with regards to home invasion/personal safety scenarios works!
What on Earth do these things have to do with each other? You know there might have been liquid water on Mars too...
It's called civilization stress, whenever a country faces defeat or uncertainty, it tends to fracture and split into splinter groups resulting in civil war and separatists movements.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
This better be a fucking joke.
No this makes sense. I always wondered what the function of saying hello to people serves, especially when you've already seen each other. It makes sense that you're not just saying "hello", you're actually saying "hello, please don't shoot me in the face".
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
lmfao... i think you watch too many bad sitcoms from america. i've been here since a teenager and i've never heard one person shout that like they do on television. on the other hand i've never heard of anyone shooting someone in their house without establishing an identity.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
This better be a fucking joke.
No this makes sense. I always wondered what the function of saying hello to people serves, especially when you've already seen each other. It makes sense that you're not just saying "hello", you're actually saying "hello, please don't shoot me in the face".
Oh, yeah! Of course! Silly me, forgetting my upbringing.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
You are being silly. Having to announce your presence in your own house is unnecessary, because it is your house.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. Bye announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
In this example, it would be better yelled at than dead. :-/ Either way, I always call when I enter a home, any home, if my own.
If I lived with a person who yelled "HELLO I AM HOME DON'T SHOOT ME PLEASE" at 12am I'd fucking strangle him gun or no gun.
On October 13 2012 18:20 PH wrote: This kind of thing makes me lean towards disallowing gun ownership. Accidents like this are just ridiculous. Beyond that, though...using deadly force to stop a potential burglar no questions asked? That's not a right we should have. That's just dumb.
How do you know they are just going to steal from you?
According to the 2009 census there was a grand total of 110 fatal burglaries out of close to 1,000,000 total residence burglaries. Meaning that you have a 0.01% chance, (yes thats one tenth of a percent) chance of death.
Now take into account that in 2009, 554 americans died of "Accidental discharge of firearms".
Meaning you are 5 times more likely to die by shooting yourself or a loved one than in a house burglary. Looking at the data I just do not see any justification that owning a gun makes you safe at all.
The only problem I see with those statistics is that it doesn't account for how many burglaries didn't occur because firearms were present. All you are siting is a statistic of how many fatalities there were. I would also like to point out that an accidental discharge of firearms doesn't always equate to someone thinking they're going to be robbed/kidnapped/killed/raped. There are many more situations that fall under the category of accidental discharges - Hunting accidents i.e. mistaking another hunter for game - hence why bright orange 'camo' is so popular, kids getting their hands on guns that were not locked up and shooting themselves or a friend, etc. So yes you are more likely to die from an accidental discharge but it also takes into account a lot more situations than having break into your home.
Exactly, the percentage of firearms related death compared to total population of gun owners is just that!
In fact, I'd say if your numbers became available, it's even a greater incentive for a civilian ownership of a gun. If American "louts" (by European standard) have been standing as a Nation since declaring independence with their "crazy" gun ownership, even winning one world war, Korean, Vietnam, Iran, Soviet regimes while possessing such "dangerous" weapons. What about civilized Europe?
Europeans have been winning wars since wars were invented. With and without gun regulations. Wars have nothing to do with having war equipment at home. The whole point of not having guns laying around is that you have to have a lot more courage to actually take the step and kill someone. You don't just push a button and he's dead.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
A) It's late at night B) When we left his dad was asleep as stated in the story C) He's was 48 years old not a fucking kid D) Taking into account A-C he had no reason to announce himself.
I'm trying to point out the life saving habit of announcing your presence when entering a house. Any house.
Had the one other person there not been alseep and had it not been after 12am I could understand that.
But his dad was asleep and it was after 12am. Jay Leno doesn't ever air until 11:30pm. No ones going to announce themselves at that time of the day especially when they know no one is awake to hear it. Bye announcing it they would probably wake said person up and piss off them for being woken up lol.
In this example, it would be better yelled at than dead. :-/ Either way, I always call when I enter a home, any home, if my own.
.. If someone walks through a locked door without breaking it down, it's pretty likely they belong inside. I could understand your point if you had to smash a window to get inside, but he walked through a door. Sure, he could be the one criminal who is educated enough to pick a lock in short enough time to not be caught, but still so stupid he breaks into homes for his money, but logic dictates that when someone does not break into a 'secured' area, and they are in that area, they belong there.
Checking the person's identity (ie turning the god damned lights on) is called for. Killing the person is not.
But I suppose there is some merit to the idea of announcing yourself in a home where someone owns a gun. It's not nice to wake people up, but its not good to get killed either. It's bad on both sides of this one.
When my country was developing, we actually had cases of burglars whose only method of break-in was to open the front door. That's it! If he was caught by the occupant, he'd pretend he got the wrong house.
Ever tried locks on your doors? It saves lives apparently, if you're of the opinion that you shoot everyone who takes a step on your property. Are you also of the opinion that the mail man is supposed to scream for his life at 5am, otherwise it's fine to blow is brains out? I mean he's on your property after all.
On October 13 2012 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: I'm sorry, but the son's death is on his own head.
Seriously. What happened to "Mom, Dad, I'm home!" Back when my mother worked for an American organisation. They always always always drill that into their children. To call out when they enter the house.
This tragedy would have been avoided with proper upbringing.
This better be a fucking joke.
No this makes sense. I always wondered what the function of saying hello to people serves, especially when you've already seen each other. It makes sense that you're not just saying "hello", you're actually saying "hello, please don't shoot me in the face".
This calls for a clarity revolution in social etiquette. In order not to miss this important but hidden queue, I propose that from now on we all say "please don't shoot me in the face" when greeting someone and skip the "hello" part entirely.
not gonna lie. police in this country are too quick on the trigger. it's a shitty way for him to learn his lesson, but i hope he now uses the opportunity to teach other cops about it.
You guys have to understand, Chicago right now is one of the worse places to be in the world. The drug king pins are fading out and a huge turf war for drugs is going on there right now. Someone coming into your home in the city, they are quick to kill you and take whatever they want. The former officer is aware of this after working homicide for years, he made the right decision to fire on the intruder without caution. It is a sad mistake that it was his son though.
How ironic i just had a 3 week long project about gun violence in america. Can't say i'm surprised but sad none the less. I think this is one of many cases of unintentional victims of bad gun behaviour dragging down a country. Just watch bowling for columbine
On October 14 2012 00:44 SyntechiTV wrote: You guys have to understand, Chicago right now is one of the worse places to be in the world. The drug king pins are fading out and a huge turf war for drugs is going on there right now. Someone coming into your home in the city, they are quick to kill you and take whatever they want. The former officer is aware of this after working homicide for years, he made the right decision to fire on the intruder without caution. It is a sad mistake that it was his son though.
How can it be the right decisions but be a sad mistake at the same time? Did he really have to go for the head shot? What ever happened to saying "Stick'em up"?
Like the other son, I am glad that the mother wasn't around for such a dreadful experience.
On October 14 2012 00:44 SyntechiTV wrote: You guys have to understand, Chicago right now is one of the worse places to be in the world. The drug king pins are fading out and a huge turf war for drugs is going on there right now. Someone coming into your home in the city, they are quick to kill you and take whatever they want. The former officer is aware of this after working homicide for years, he made the right decision to fire on the intruder without caution. It is a sad mistake that it was his son though.
Yeah because intruders usually use a key to open your backdoor. Stop making up excuses. This was absolutely no situation in which the father should have shot.
On October 14 2012 01:08 Zenbrez wrote: Despite what most Americans seem to think.. you don't need guns in your homes.
Honestly it depends on where you live. I don't need one where I live but I know people who live in awful areas who really DO need them. -sigh- Whatever your view, though, this incident was still incredibly tragic and that's what matters.
On October 14 2012 01:08 Zenbrez wrote: Despite what most Americans seem to think.. you don't need guns in your homes.
edit Also, couldn't this cop go to jail? Far as I'm concerned his reaction was excessive, which is a big no-no. Unless that's just in Canada?
Despite you thinking you know what's best for all americans you don't.
And you do?
Did I claim to know what all americans need? No, I didn't you did. FYI I've lived in the US for 14 years. I lived in New Orleans for 6 years and currently live in los angeles so yea...
People are willfully ignorant to the reality of criminals having guns and using them on defenseless people daily. All in the name of pushing their ideals and opinions on people from another god damn country.
I think a major problem is that the cops in the US seem to be trained to pull their firearms rather quickly and think after. I am from Toronto and I went to the Bills Pats game a couple weeks ago. As we were pulling into the parking lot at the Ralph, a female cop who was directing traffic was waving my friend who was driving through the intersection. We slowly made our way through at her command, but as we approach her, she reaches for her gun and takes it out at us for no reason. My only guess was she was taking it out incase we got too close and she thought shed get hit or something? I have no idea, but we were literally going like 5km/hour in a crowded intersection at her becon, and she pulled a gun on us. We all just froze up and yelled "what the fuckkkkkkkkkk". She then walked to our window, stopped us for 5 seconds, and then said proceed. Like what in the fuck is that?
If you pull your gun on instinct for every little thing, shit like this is bound to happen. I dont personally believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, but that isnt even what I am going to argue for. I realize that isnt so much of a possibility in the US, I just think training to think first and shoot after is needed, because apparently even your cops are trained to pull a firearm on a vehicle crawling through an intersection in their general direction, that they are telling to do so. This incident had to be reactionary, and was likely due to his training to act in this fashion.
On October 14 2012 01:40 Focuspants wrote: I think a major problem is that the cops in the US seem to be trained to pull their firearms rather quickly and think after. I am from Toronto and I went to the Bills Pats game a couple weeks ago. As we were pulling into the parking lot at the Ralph, a female cop who was directing traffic was waving my friend who was driving through the intersection. We slowly made our way through at her command, but as we approach her, she reaches for her gun and takes it out at us for no reason. My only guess was she was taking it out incase we got too close and she thought shed get hit or something? I have no idea, but we were literally going like 5km/hour in a crowded intersection at her becon, and she pulled a gun on us. We all just froze up and yelled "what the fuckkkkkkkkkk".
If you pull your gun on instinct for every little thing, shit like this is bound to happen. I dont personally believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, but that isnt even what I am going to argue for. I realize that isnt so much of a possibility in the US, I just think training to think first and shoot after is needed, because apparently even your cops are trained to pull a firearm on a vehicle crawling through an intersection in their general direction, that they are telling to do so. This incident had to be reactionary, and was likely due to his training to act in this fashion.
She pulled it out and pointed it at you or just pulled it out? Regardless that's pretty careless. I've never seen a cop draw his weapon before. Traffic stops are extremely dangerous and even then they don't come at you with their firearm.
On October 14 2012 01:40 Focuspants wrote: I think a major problem is that the cops in the US seem to be trained to pull their firearms rather quickly and think after. I am from Toronto and I went to the Bills Pats game a couple weeks ago. As we were pulling into the parking lot at the Ralph, a female cop who was directing traffic was waving my friend who was driving through the intersection. We slowly made our way through at her command, but as we approach her, she reaches for her gun and takes it out at us for no reason. My only guess was she was taking it out incase we got too close and she thought shed get hit or something? I have no idea, but we were literally going like 5km/hour in a crowded intersection at her becon, and she pulled a gun on us. We all just froze up and yelled "what the fuckkkkkkkkkk".
If you pull your gun on instinct for every little thing, shit like this is bound to happen. I dont personally believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, but that isnt even what I am going to argue for. I realize that isnt so much of a possibility in the US, I just think training to think first and shoot after is needed, because apparently even your cops are trained to pull a firearm on a vehicle crawling through an intersection in their general direction, that they are telling to do so. This incident had to be reactionary, and was likely due to his training to act in this fashion.
She pulled it out and pointed it at you or just pulled it out? Regardless that's pretty careless. I've never seen a cop draw his weapon before.
She pulled it out and had it pointed down near the hood of my friends car. It was in her hand, out of her holster though, and ready to fire. It freaked the everliving shit out of us.
On October 14 2012 01:40 Focuspants wrote: I think a major problem is that the cops in the US seem to be trained to pull their firearms rather quickly and think after. I am from Toronto and I went to the Bills Pats game a couple weeks ago. As we were pulling into the parking lot at the Ralph, a female cop who was directing traffic was waving my friend who was driving through the intersection. We slowly made our way through at her command, but as we approach her, she reaches for her gun and takes it out at us for no reason. My only guess was she was taking it out incase we got too close and she thought shed get hit or something? I have no idea, but we were literally going like 5km/hour in a crowded intersection at her becon, and she pulled a gun on us. We all just froze up and yelled "what the fuckkkkkkkkkk".
If you pull your gun on instinct for every little thing, shit like this is bound to happen. I dont personally believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, but that isnt even what I am going to argue for. I realize that isnt so much of a possibility in the US, I just think training to think first and shoot after is needed, because apparently even your cops are trained to pull a firearm on a vehicle crawling through an intersection in their general direction, that they are telling to do so. This incident had to be reactionary, and was likely due to his training to act in this fashion.
She pulled it out and pointed it at you or just pulled it out? Regardless that's pretty careless. I've never seen a cop draw his weapon before.
She pulled it out and had it pointed down near the hood of my friends car. It was in her hand, out of her holster though, and ready to fire. It freaked the everliving shit out of us.
That's pretty weird and I would have reported her. I'm not a cop and i don't know their procedures but I've lived here for 14 years and never seen a gun pulled even in traffic stops.
I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
On October 14 2012 01:40 Focuspants wrote: I think a major problem is that the cops in the US seem to be trained to pull their firearms rather quickly and think after. I am from Toronto and I went to the Bills Pats game a couple weeks ago. As we were pulling into the parking lot at the Ralph, a female cop who was directing traffic was waving my friend who was driving through the intersection. We slowly made our way through at her command, but as we approach her, she reaches for her gun and takes it out at us for no reason. My only guess was she was taking it out incase we got too close and she thought shed get hit or something? I have no idea, but we were literally going like 5km/hour in a crowded intersection at her becon, and she pulled a gun on us. We all just froze up and yelled "what the fuckkkkkkkkkk".
If you pull your gun on instinct for every little thing, shit like this is bound to happen. I dont personally believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, but that isnt even what I am going to argue for. I realize that isnt so much of a possibility in the US, I just think training to think first and shoot after is needed, because apparently even your cops are trained to pull a firearm on a vehicle crawling through an intersection in their general direction, that they are telling to do so. This incident had to be reactionary, and was likely due to his training to act in this fashion.
She pulled it out and pointed it at you or just pulled it out? Regardless that's pretty careless. I've never seen a cop draw his weapon before.
She pulled it out and had it pointed down near the hood of my friends car. It was in her hand, out of her holster though, and ready to fire. It freaked the everliving shit out of us.
That's pretty weird and I would have reported her. I'm not a cop and i don't know their procedures but I've lived here for 14 years and never seen a gun pulled even in traffic stops.
In hind-sight we should have reported her, but we were so shocked we didnt even know what to do. We dont have her badge number, or cruiser number or anything. We would literally have to call in and say "a female cop did this" which likely wont lead to anything.
Also being from Toronto, I too have never seen a cop even reach in the vicinity of their firearm. It was truly shocking.
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
Retired (Recently) Cop is incompetent with his weapon: Discussion is about guns, not about how the "Police are trained and effective with firearms" mantra is a ruse.
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
There's no 'we ban guns, then they're gone!' solution. It'd have to be a long term process of making them less available and removing them from circulation.
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
There's no 'we ban guns, then they're gone!' solution. It'd have to be a long term process of making them less available and removing them from circulation.
And for the next 50+ years criminals have free reign because they know law abiding citizens have no weapons? That's like telling the USA to remove all their nukes because nukes are wrong. Meanwhile the other states like NK and Iran keep theirs because they don't follow the rules. It's pretty much the reality of the situation that leads me to believe it's not feasible to remove guns from america even if the populace wanted to (they don't).
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
There's no 'we ban guns, then they're gone!' solution. It'd have to be a long term process of making them less available and removing them from circulation.
And for the next 50+ years criminals have free reign because they know law abiding citizens have no weapons? That's like telling the USA to remove all their nukes because nukes are wrong. Meanwhile the other states like NK and Iran keep theirs because they don't follow the rules. It's pretty much the reality of the situation that leads me to believe it's not feasible to remove guns from america even if the populace wanted to (they don't).
Do you really picture the US as some unpoliced war-zone where the only thing holding back the hordes of criminals is that civilians have easy access to lethal force?
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
There's no 'we ban guns, then they're gone!' solution. It'd have to be a long term process of making them less available and removing them from circulation.
And for the next 50+ years criminals have free reign because they know law abiding citizens have no weapons? That's like telling the USA to remove all their nukes because nukes are wrong. Meanwhile the other states like NK and Iran keep theirs because they don't follow the rules. It's pretty much the reality of the situation that leads me to believe it's not feasible to remove guns from america even if the populace wanted to (they don't).
Do you really picture the US as some unpoliced war-zone where the only thing holding back the hordes of criminals is that civilians have easy access to lethal force?
There's a bigger problem in that situation.
Apparently hordes of armed criminals is one of the better arguments for gun availability, as often as it is repeated.
I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common?
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common?
Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws?
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next?
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common?
Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws?
No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common?
Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws?
No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party.
Please read my above post then quote me where I said guns are the solution to violent crime.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next?
Now now, we know that learning the basics of debate and logical fallacy is an exciting time in a young boys life, but that does not excuse you from committing the very mistakes you so garishly point out in others. No one has suggested the removal of the right to bear arms; most are merely pointing out the utility in removing guns from circulation and making them, overall, more difficult to obtain. It took your childish exaggeration to stretch that into some constitutional referendum on basic rights, and now we are back at square one, with the definition of a "strawman" argument and an apparently self-righteous poster. Where shall we go from here?
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next?
Now now, we know that learning the basics of debate and logical fallacy is an exciting time in a young boys life, but that does not excuse you from committing the very mistakes you so garishly point out in others. No one has suggested the removal of the right to bear arms; most are merely pointing out the utility in removing guns from circulation and making them, overall, more difficult to obtain. It took your childish exaggeration to stretch that into some constitutional referendum on basic rights, and now we are back at square one, with the definition of a "strawman" argument and an apparently self-righteous poster. Where shall we go from here?
strawman didnt work? moved on to the ad hominem? thats a common trend i noticed with your posting. If you took 5minutes to read the last page before you posted you would realize we actually were debating removal of guns from society as a whole. But of course that wouldn't support your random attack on me so why would you pay attention to that, it's easier to attack a post without context.
Guy should be done for grossly negligent manslaughter, if something like that exists in the US. Wonder what went through his head after he realized he just shot his son in the face..
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common?
Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws?
No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party.
Hence the DETERRENCE. Same way Singapore DETERS internal drug smuggling by having smugglers swing (executed). That's why we don't have pushers openly selling on our streets.
To the nerds who think violent gangs like La eMe or Bloods will disarm. Come on, guys. Our laws mean nothing to those who already have done hard fu*king time in some of the worst prisons in the world and have no problem to just walk in anyone's home to slit open their throats, including children, they just need their leader's orders.
Think these guys will surrender their gun stash after the laws are passed? Do you think police men will even ask after there is precedence of policemen having their relatives murdered/kidnapped/raped as retaliation for multimillion dollar drug seizures already. Do you think they are willing to risk their lives and their innocent relatives and family over $500.00 guns? Come on. Go to the bad places in London or Madrid, where gangs openly carry with no intervention from equally armed cops. Why? Most policemen fear for their families.
Please go see the world more.
You guys want safety, migrate to Singapore. Just prepare to leave your freedoms at our door. Freedoms like right to free speech, right to gather freely, right to self-defense, etc.
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
I wonder why his son was wearing a mask while coming in the back door late at night unannounced? That's not something I usually do at my parent's place.
EDIT The article said the same thing happened to a teacher last month so I guess it's not too uncommon a thing to do. Just weird in my opinion.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
On October 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
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.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next?
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 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal.
Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and its first main-stream use for gun powder was as fireworks. A harmless display of bright lights.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
As far as I understand, there are two main products which exist in the Western world which when used for their intended purpose cause death. Those two products are cigarettes and guns. In much of the Western world both products are heavily regulated, however in the US only cigarettes are. It almost seems like a double standard to me.
Note: This is mostly intended as a rebuttal to the 'guns are tools' argument, since other 'tools' like cars are NOT designed to kill, but are designed for a constructive purpose.
Also, a model for the regulation of guns is that which was adopted in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre. Prior to PA guns were quite readily available, many without registration. When guns were essentially outlawed in Australia there was a buy-back scheme where the government would pay people for their guns during the amnesty period before the legislation took effect. This took a large amount of guns out of the hands of the population, which deals with one of the key arguments against gun regulation. Another common argument raised is that if you take guns off the civilians then only the criminals will have guns. Technically, that is true, however in Australia since PA, the vast majority of gun crime (and there is still very little of it) is between criminals, not between criminals and civilians. There are many reasons as to why this could be, including the harsh penalties for using guns in a crime, the fact that there is no need to use a gun against unarmed civilians, or criminals (thieves in this case) generally fleeing when they are caught by an unarmed homeowner, rather than attacking them. I feel that with households being unarmed, criminals will swap-out a gun for a balaclava since their primary concern will switch from being shot to being caught, which is much safer for both parties. (I would much rather be robbed than have loss of life, and I am sure most people would agree with me on that point).
In relation to the actual case, although it seems to be unusual one in that being a retired police officer, he had significant experience and training with guns, it is actually far more ordinary. This is because shooting at someone you can't see clearly, and that you don't even know what they are doing, is quite obviously the wrong thing to do, and I think anybody with gun training would agree with me on that. So rather than it being a person without gun training, it was a person who disregarded their gun training, which is the same thing essentially.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
What have you been smoking? Of course guns kill people, they were designed for that sole purpose. They're different from other tools that can be used to kill people (knives, cars, baseball bats etc) but are intended for another purpose.
I don't see how being a "retired cop" is a distinguishing factor in this story? Would the title contain his profession if the father was a retired sales manager?
What have you been smoking? Of course guns kill people, they were designed for that sole purpose. They're different from other tools that can be used to kill people (knives, cars, baseball bats etc) but are intended for another purpose.
Funny you should say that, because you can buy confetti rounds. Google it.
Just look at Syria to see how well civilian gun ownership (primarily light rifles - AKs) can confront a government's military. Without heavy weapons (anti-aircraft guns, artillery, RPGs, etc.), the civilians get massacred.
More guns means more deaths caused by guns. Is the equalization of power to commit violence between citizens is worth the cost? Physically weak people can defend themselves from violent attacks with the aid of a firearm. Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies. Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
On October 15 2012 00:11 Zealotdriver wrote: Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs.
The states seems to have a monopoly on keeping its citizens scared shitless of everything. I've felt perfectly safe my whole life living in Australia and Korea, never owned a gun.
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit.
Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it.
The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS!
AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT!
How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today.
How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better.
The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year.
Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun.
Feel better now?
Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages.
Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me...
Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal.
Hope that helps.
If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies.
You're the one concocting movie scenarios. Armed citizens in the modern age are neither necessary or effective in maintaining democracy.
On October 15 2012 00:11 Zealotdriver wrote: Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs.
The states seems to have a monopoly on keeping its citizens scared shitless of everything. I've felt perfectly safe my whole life living in Australia and Korea, never owned a gun.
This so many times. The fact that you need to a gun to feel safe speaks horribly of the government and the country itself. Bad things happen for sure, but I've felt safe all the time and don't even need to think about guns. It is a fabricated necessity, not a real one.
On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote: Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies. Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
Want to see how guns could have helped the Aboriginals? See the example below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze The Druze are a world minority totaling 1 million worldwide but yet they have representation in their government of Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.
Despite their practice of blending with dominant groups in order to avoid persecution and because the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in, nevertheless the Druze have had a history of brave resistance to occupying powers, and they have at times enjoyed more freedom than most other groups living in the Levant.
So, yes, please continue the name calling as support arguments. Let me add mine.
You are deludedly naive that cops that can magically teleport appear to save the day from those dastardly villains at just the right time in their squad cars or patrols. You watch waaaay too much TV. hahaha.
You are so stupid and naive I don't even know how to describe you. As if possession of a book means the person has fully read, understood and is able to apply the contents of the said book. By that definition, everyone who has a high school certificate should be able to produce their own drugs (Chemistry), know and apply military strategy (History), start their own business (Math) and understand and build their own buildings/machines (Physics). And score three pointers at will.
Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
Scarecrow, the world is vastly larger and more complicated than your little imagination.
If guns are necessary for overthrowing a corrupt, repressive government, how come communism in Eastern Europe crumpled, as soon as the threat of Russian tanks was withdrawn?
Despite a lack of armed civilians, every single communist government in the area fell in two short years.
Hint - that's because an armed population is not necessary to overthrow a government. A united population is.
All that an armed, divided population will lead to is civil war. (At which point, Western powers start playing kingmaker.)
On October 15 2012 01:11 Nightfall.589 wrote: If guns are necessary for overthrowing a corrupt, repressive government, how come communism in Eastern Europe crumpled, as soon as the threat of Russian tanks was withdrawn?
Despite a lack of armed civilians, every single communist government in the area fell in two short years.
Hint - that's because an armed population is not necessary to overthrow a government. A united population is.
All that an armed, divided population will lead to is civil war. (At which point, Western powers start playing kingmaker.)
Then how do explain Bosnian/Serbian conflict, or Burma (British withdrew, turned into Junta rule)? You are correct on the unity of the people. Their desire for a peaceful transition for equal representation via a democratic government after seeing the failed policies of socialism and communism.
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech?
There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech?
There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
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.
Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
On October 15 2012 01:39 Kukaracha wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
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.
... what? My argument is that the defense of his rights in front of the government is an invalid defense of gun rights. Self-defense is a valid one. And this because a) ownership of weapons does not correlate with the form of the state through history and b) the population is nowadays not controlled by force but by persuasion through various media.
I didn't even say if I was in favor or against gun control.
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
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 do 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.
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 14 2012 01:45 Mataza wrote: I am just happy I don´t live in America. In my country, when there is a burglar, I am afraid he has a knife. Then I go to my kitchen and get a knife myself. Not to say I can´t respect alternative approaches to overpopulation, but I don´t think people killing each other(by accident or not) is the intent behind widespread gun possession.
But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us.
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.
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case.
I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality.
nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next?
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?
I think the easiest way to answer your question would be to say that if I lived in europe where the chance of me being confronted with a firearm in my own house would be pretty much zero then no I would not think we need guns for defense. I don't think having guns to defend from the government makes much sense. And I am also not very thrilled about completely retarded and untrained shooters carrying around loaded firearms in public. But the reality currently is that I live in los angeles and the city is very violent with lots of violent and armed home invasions, therefore anyone telling me I shouldn't be able to have a gun to protect myself is a tool blinded by his own reality and that's not the reality I live in.
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 ....
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 01:39 Kukaracha wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
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.
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.
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech?
There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
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.
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 02:12 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.
Satire aside, it's really not productive to generalize an entire country. I know that I personally don't shoot people in the head, and I highly doubt that the other american posters on this forum shoot people in the head on a regular basis.
On October 15 2012 01:39 Kukaracha wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
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.
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 01:39 Kukaracha wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
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.
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.
lmao you have to be kidding.
No, I'm actually not. I mean change it to force women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. There are likely many people who would support an oppressive government advocating that. So the notion that gun ownership is conducive to a popular uprising to uphold social morality is an assumption. Not everyone shares your morality.
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
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.
Not that name calling shit again.
Dude, guns are ONE part in an entire equation with regards to a government turning into a virtual dictatorship. If you understood leadership, and it's processes in establishing law and order in a society, you'd understand my point of view. See Cambodia and Afghanistan.
Name your African nation. It is insulting to lump an entire continent of different cultures, peoples and nationalities into a stereotype and gross generalizations, partly to blame because of your fear mongering media.
Somalia has restored its own law & order into various warlords. Zimbabwe turned into a dictatorship after its President decided he likes his spot in the political food chain. Exactly as pro-gun said it would happen. Nigeria is peaceful and developing nicely in spite for being famous for global email scams. Kenya is peaceful, after defeating the ethic Somalis and their secession attempt by 1969 to join Somalia.
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.
Edit: I realized you are saying the same thing I did. Except you believe it can be achieved without firing a shot. I think that's naive. But you're entitled to your opinion.
My Sks has more than likely been used to kill someone in it's life. But now that I own it I use it for target shooting. Guns are not just to kill people. Rifles can be for clay shooting, target shooting and for hunting and self defense. People who work in forests in the north of Canada carry guns for bears. A few workers have been mauled to death by polar/grizzly bears. Canada has an incredibly low firearm crime rate and yet I still want one for home defense. Why should I have to fight some crack head who may be armed with a knife or gun when he has invaded my home. Why the fuck should I gamble my life my girlfriends life that the next BTK isn't the one in my home?
Handguns IMO are designed to kill people. That's why they should be at the range or in your home. I don't really agree with coceales carry because situations like the trayvon Martin case get massively escalated.
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
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.
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.
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 01:39 Kukaracha wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
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.
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.
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech?
There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
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.
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.
You just described the intention behind voting. That any man or woman can establish freely the government they see fit to decide their rules without firing a shot and accept the decision of the majority.
Compared to an armed government ruling an unarmed population. Like when Singapore was Japanese land for a time.
On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote: Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies. Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
#1Want to see how guns could have helped the Aboriginals? See the example below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze The Druze are a world minority totaling 1 million worldwide but yet they have representation in their government of Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.
Despite their practice of blending with dominant groups in order to avoid persecution and because the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in, nevertheless the Druze have had a history of brave resistance to occupying powers, and they have at times enjoyed more freedom than most other groups living in the Levant.
So, yes, please continue the name calling as support arguments. Let me add mine.
#2 You are deludedly naive that cops that can magically teleport appear to save the day from those dastardly villains at just the right time in their squad cars or patrols. You watch waaaay too much TV. hahaha.
#3You are so stupid and naive I don't even know how to describe you. As if possession of a book means the person has fully read, understood and is able to apply the contents of the said book. By that definition, everyone who has a high school certificate should be able to produce their own drugs (Chemistry), know and apply military strategy (History), start their own business (Math) and understand and build their own buildings/machines (Physics). And score three pointers at will.
Seriously, you are some fucking moron. #4 You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
#5Scarecrow, the world is vastly larger and more complicated than your little imagination.
#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.
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
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.
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.
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.
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 02:12 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 ....
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.
Which is exactly why you can get charged for murder if you shoot to kill with no assessment of the threat. Burglars can't shoot from between their legs -- if they have a gun and it's pointed at you, you will see it. You're taking your life into your own hands when you decide to point a gun back. Otherwise, what's to stop anyone from shooting someone in their home and claiming they thought it was a burglar -- you know, like that douche scumbag son who invaded your home.
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol.. I didn't realize I was advocating tyranny. It's an interesting accusation, particularly considering you're the one in favor of mass gun ownership to fight a bloody war against the government over what you believe (use of force on those who don't agree). It's interesting that you consider that fighting tyranny, but a government fighting for the rights of women and black slaves is a tyrannical one. Well, no matter.
No, I don't advocate the use of force over those who don't agree, but this is why we have a bill of rights or a constitution. A fundamental set of principles that are not up for debate because they are more fundamental than a voting practice. The notion that all people should be respected equally as beings, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. The gun problem will eventually be sorted out in the U.S.A. it has been sorted out in virtually every other post industrial nation on earth to some extent, and it was done so without invoking tyranny.
I live in Belgium and here you are allowed to kill a burglar if he enters your house by night. However, this is strictly regulated and under most circumstances you will be punished. Also owning a gun is for most ppl illegal so the chances of this happening here are very slim
On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote: Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies. Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
#1Want to see how guns could have helped the Aboriginals? See the example below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze The Druze are a world minority totaling 1 million worldwide but yet they have representation in their government of Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.
Despite their practice of blending with dominant groups in order to avoid persecution and because the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in, nevertheless the Druze have had a history of brave resistance to occupying powers, and they have at times enjoyed more freedom than most other groups living in the Levant.
So, yes, please continue the name calling as support arguments. Let me add mine.
#2 You are deludedly naive that cops that can magically teleport appear to save the day from those dastardly villains at just the right time in their squad cars or patrols. You watch waaaay too much TV. hahaha.
#3You are so stupid and naive I don't even know how to describe you. As if possession of a book means the person has fully read, understood and is able to apply the contents of the said book. By that definition, everyone who has a high school certificate should be able to produce their own drugs (Chemistry), know and apply military strategy (History), start their own business (Math) and understand and build their own buildings/machines (Physics). And score three pointers at will.
Seriously, you are some fucking moron. #4 You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
#5Scarecrow, the world is vastly larger and more complicated than your little imagination.
#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.
#1 Your Australian government did as they wished to the Aboriginals, breaking up families, colonisation, WAP, assimilation. In Singapore's case, the Japanese rounded up the Chinese majority and had them shot along Changi beach. We were powerless. Yes, the Aboriginals don't need guns now, they have their representation and welfare now, after having lost dignity being moved around like toys and purpose after being separated from their culture. Good job, keep it up.
#2 Crime rate in Singapore is near zero because of police state. What about crime ridden area? Wildlife and secluded area? Stop living in your little world.
#3 You obviously miss the point of the analogy.
#4 Let's change the subject, You're the one saying that trucks are important to have as a productivity driver for government economics. I don't believe trucks are a danger in the sense of productivity, just people dying unnecessarily like the two sons run over by their trucker father.
#5 Seriously? Guns aren't available in Singapore, I learned a martial art, now I get to be asked to help walk female friends to places. Maybe among your friends, you laugh at "backward" US. But last I checked, US military is one with the multi-trillion military-industrial complex protecting Singapore and by extension, all of South East Asia, not Australia. Try again.
On October 12 2012 14:52 armada[sb] wrote: Shooting to kill before being able to identify your own son is extremely questionable in my opinion. Not saying he murdered his son, just seems so inconceivable to me.
Him wanting to murder his son, I would not put out of the question. Either that or his mind is seriously warped from his life.
So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
Anyone teaching people not to aim for center of mass should not be teaching anyone how to protect themselves with a firearm. You shoot to kill not disable. If you have no intention to kill don't shoot. That being said I'm not condoning what this man did especially considering how few the facts are at this time.
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 ....
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.
It's like you think people commit burglaries to kill people. I love it.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
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 ....
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.
It's like you think people commit burglaries to kill people. I love it.
Implying that people only break into homes to steal. And on top of that simple home burglaries turn violent ALL THE TIME in the US.
It's like you think people's lives who make a decision to break into your home while you are fucking there are more important than your family. You have all the rights in the world to put the life of someone invading your home before the safety of your family, but I don't think your family will appreciate that. These people make a conscious choice to break in , they are forfeiting their safety.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers.
I, as an ignorant european, do have the impression that alot of 'rednecks' do have this mentality. I hope someone can tell me im wrong.
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers.
I, as an ignorant european, do have the impression that alot of 'rednecks' do have this mentality. I hope someone can tell me im wrong.
That's probably due to the fact that most europeans think americans are some kind of cowboys like they see on movies. Europe has a really warped view on americans If you really think that's the case I feel bad for you. The mentality of americans are backwards morons and europeans are better and smarter is hilarious.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers.
I, as an ignorant european, do have the impression that alot of 'rednecks' do have this mentality. I hope someone can tell me im wrong.
First it was the majority of people you know. Now it's just the rednecks... So, are the majority of people you know rednecks? If so, how? If you're actually in Europe.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers.
I, as an ignorant european, do have the impression that alot of 'rednecks' do have this mentality. I hope someone can tell me im wrong.
First it was the majority of people you know. Now it's just the rednecks... So, are the majority of people you know rednecks? If so, how? If you're actually in Europe.
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
Yes get guns and kill!!!! Forget about the sanctity of life and kill....kill...KILL!!!!
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
Yes get guns and kill!!!! Forget about the sanctity of life and kill....kill...KILL!!!!
Yes get a post and take it out of context!!!!! Forget about the process of actually learning my stance before attacking me. ignorance...ignorance...IGNORANCE!!!!
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers.
I, as an ignorant european, do have the impression that alot of 'rednecks' do have this mentality. I hope someone can tell me im wrong.
First it was the majority of people you know. Now it's just the rednecks... So, are the majority of people you know rednecks? If so, how? If you're actually in Europe.
I think youre mistaking him for another poster...
Probably. Quoting quoted quotes has led me astray.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8. Which equates the entirety of my adult life.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe fashion.
I think its funny how people randomly pull out the " they watch to much Fox News" card. As if every other media outlet is totaly 100% unbiased. There's as much anti gun propoganda from the Liberal media as there is pro gun from the conservative.
But I guess when in doubt blame only 20% of the problem not the whole 100%. Because CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are SOOOOOOOO saintly they should be blessed by the Pope.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
Why in the world would you shoot the first thing you saw in the knees? Theres no way that's a rational thought when someone has a gun and is scared. What happened to point the gun at them and inform them you have one? If they have a gun and they point it at you, that sounds like a pretty reasonable excuse to fire to kill.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Wow, how did that go so far over your head? There is a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone and defending yourself. If you can't understand that I don't think you have any business in this discussion.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Uh? You're criticizing his logic but you're just completely warping his posts. You can be willling to kill someone using your weapon if you feel like your own life is threatened, that doesn't mean you're actually looking forward (or "waiting for an excuse" to reuse the exact words he used) for it to happen.
I'm willing to steal bread from bakeries if my family is starving one day. That doesn't mean I want it to happen.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Wow, how did that go so far over your head? There is a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone and defending yourself. If you can't understand that I don't think you have any business in this discussion.
By wielding a gun you accept that there is a possibility that you will shoot someone. Thus by buying a gun, you express that you are willing to shoot someone. If you don't understand that you don't belong near a gun.
You're trying to sugar coat killing people by using a prettier word, 'defense'. It just so happens that you yourself said that defense entails shooting someone at center of mass, which is a pretty efficient way of killing somebody.
So again, if you want to use self defense as an argument for general gun ownership, don't give me bullshit about the majority of gun owners not being willing to kill people.
On October 15 2012 05:12 Stutters695 wrote: [quote]
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Wow, how did that go so far over your head? There is a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone and defending yourself. If you can't understand that I don't think you have any business in this discussion.
By wielding a gun you accept that there is a possibility that you will shoot someone. Thus by buying a gun, you express that you are willing to shoot someone. If you don't understand that you don't belong near a gun.
You're trying to sugar coat killing people by using a prettier word, 'defense'. It just so happens that you yourself said that defense entails shooting someone at center of mass, which is a pretty efficient way of killing somebody.
So again, if you want to use self defense as an argument for general gun ownership, don't give me bullshit about the majority of gun owners not being willing to kill people.
There is a difference between wanting to kill someone and being willing to do it to defend myself. I won't be responding to your ridiculousness any further.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Your unreal...
If some one enters my home at night you bet your ass I'm gonna fucking shoot them. I can't read their mind, I don't know if they are armed with a gun, a knife or a nuke. I can't read their mind and know what their intentions are if they intend to steal, rape some one or kill someone. Why should I as a decent human being be expected to gamble my life and my girlfriends life when someone enters my home with a malicious intent? I should not have to fucking knife fight some random crackhead to keep us safe.
Maybe I could fight some crack head but do you really expect my girl friend who is tiny to fight him off if she's home alone?
I don't sit a home rubbing my gun and my dick at night with a trail of money leading into my house to waiting to shoot someone but I will not gamble my life in the slim slim slim slim chance that someone does make the mistake of entering my home with unknown intentions.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
I'd change this slightly.
1. I need to defend myself 2. The purpose of a gun is to kill 3. I need a gun to defend myself
The underlying value here is not so much that you need to potentially be willing to kill in order to defend yourself as perhaps it should be, the value here ends up being that in pursuit of self defense, the other person's life becomes worth so very little you don't even need to consider what he's doing or whether or not killing him is necessary. He broke into my house and I shot for the center mass. Period.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Your unreal...
If some one enters my home at night you bet your ass I'm gonna fucking shoot them. I can't read their mind, I don't know if they are armed with a gun, a knife or a nuke. I can't read their mind and know what their intentions are if they intend to steal, rape some one or kill someone. Why should I as a decent human being be expected to gamble my life and my girlfriends life when someone enters my home with a malicious intent? I should not have to fucking knife fight some random crackhead to keep us safe.
Yeah, see above, but basically this implies that your default response is shoot to kill. In other words, if you know nothing about someone's intentions, you kill them, and if you were somehow able to learn something about their intentions you might not. Shoot to kill shouldn't be the default response, it should be the last response for a decent human being.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
I'd change this slightly.
1. I need to defend myself 2. The purpose of a gun is to kill 3. I need a gun to defend myself
The underlying value here is not so much that you need to potentially be willing to kill in order to defend yourself as perhaps it should be, the value here ends up being that in pursuit of self defense, the other person's life becomes worth so very little you don't even need to consider what he's doing or whether or not killing him is necessary. He broke into my house and I shot for the center mass. Period.
Why should I gamble my safety on someone who willingly invaded my home? If he didn't decide to break in I would not even think about harming the person. I'm not saying i don't respect someones opinion if it may be that, but I literally don't understand why I should just pray he doesn't intend to harm me. Anyone who is breaking into my home while I am in it willingly gave up his right to safety. No one forced him to come in.
edit: This is taking into consideration that guns are in criminals hands and NO law is going to remove them any time soon. Not a perfect world scenario, but rather a reality of what is going on in america.
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.
what amazes me the most is not, that he shot his son in the face, but that the police isnt pressing charges against him. I mean only in a America is it ok to shoot someone in the face at first site, and be seen as self defense rather than murder (Which it is!), and I especially dont understand it since it was his song, who he "thought" was an intruder - Do they just let people murder there family members, and let them get away with it, because it was an accident, and in the home.
I imagine that when he speaks with one of his friends, it'll go something like this: "Hey, what's up?" "not much...I just shot my kid in the head yesterday" "Holy shit!" "I thought he was trespassing" "...Oh well, it happens."
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
I'd change this slightly.
1. I need to defend myself 2. The purpose of a gun is to kill 3. I need a gun to defend myself
The underlying value here is not so much that you need to potentially be willing to kill in order to defend yourself as perhaps it should be, the value here ends up being that in pursuit of self defense, the other person's life becomes worth so very little you don't even need to consider what he's doing or whether or not killing him is necessary. He broke into my house and I shot for the center mass. Period.
On October 15 2012 05:12 Stutters695 wrote: [quote]
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Your unreal...
If some one enters my home at night you bet your ass I'm gonna fucking shoot them. I can't read their mind, I don't know if they are armed with a gun, a knife or a nuke. I can't read their mind and know what their intentions are if they intend to steal, rape some one or kill someone. Why should I as a decent human being be expected to gamble my life and my girlfriends life when someone enters my home with a malicious intent? I should not have to fucking knife fight some random crackhead to keep us safe.
Yeah, see above, but basically this implies that your default response is shoot to kill. In other words, if you know nothing about someone's intentions, you kill them, and if you were somehow able to learn something about their intentions you might not. Shoot to kill shouldn't be the default response, it should be the last response for a decent human being.
I'll add that I would define who the person is before shooting and warn them that I have a gun and that the police are coming. If they continue upstairs then I would shoot.
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.
On October 15 2012 05:12 Stutters695 wrote: [quote]
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
I'd change this slightly.
1. I need to defend myself 2. The purpose of a gun is to kill 3. I need a gun to defend myself
The underlying value here is not so much that you need to potentially be willing to kill in order to defend yourself as perhaps it should be, the value here ends up being that in pursuit of self defense, the other person's life becomes worth so very little you don't even need to consider what he's doing or whether or not killing him is necessary. He broke into my house and I shot for the center mass. Period.
On October 15 2012 06:51 tokicheese wrote:
On October 15 2012 06:32 Jormundr wrote:
On October 15 2012 06:16 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 06:05 lodeet wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:45 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:40 lodeet wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote: [quote]
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Your unreal...
If some one enters my home at night you bet your ass I'm gonna fucking shoot them. I can't read their mind, I don't know if they are armed with a gun, a knife or a nuke. I can't read their mind and know what their intentions are if they intend to steal, rape some one or kill someone. Why should I as a decent human being be expected to gamble my life and my girlfriends life when someone enters my home with a malicious intent? I should not have to fucking knife fight some random crackhead to keep us safe.
Yeah, see above, but basically this implies that your default response is shoot to kill. In other words, if you know nothing about someone's intentions, you kill them, and if you were somehow able to learn something about their intentions you might not. Shoot to kill shouldn't be the default response, it should be the last response for a decent human being.
I'll add that I would define who the person is before shooting and warn them that I have a gun and that the police are coming. If they continue upstairs then I would shoot.
I suppose that's reasonable. I'd hate to have to do it though.
How about inventing a new gun that disables a person for a while but has no chance of killing them. Would function for self-defense, wouldn't carry the same sort of risk for misuse. I don't mean a melee weapon like the taser.
On October 15 2012 07:13 Shikyo wrote: Another guns vs no guns argument?
How about inventing a new gun that disables a person for a while but has no chance of killing them. Would function for self-defense, wouldn't carry the same sort of risk for misuse. I don't mean a melee weapon like the taser.
We can't say what we would do in a similar situation. Like we'd ever know. The amount of fear and adrenaline would certain derail your plans and you would probably not act rationally. I guess I would expect more control from a former cop, but he is retired, and he is only human. Though you don't read about many headshots involving burglaries. Perhaps his training had this result: pretty good at aiming, and pretty fearful. Result? Immediate headshot.
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.
On October 15 2012 07:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote: We can't say what we would do in a similar situation. Like we'd ever know. The amount of fear and adrenaline would certain derail your plans and you would probably not act rationally. I guess I would expect more control from a former cop, but he is retired, and he is only human. Though you don't read about many headshots involving burglaries. Perhaps his training had this result: pretty good at aiming, and pretty fearful. Result? Immediate headshot.
Is it common for cops in the US to shoot people in the head? Or burglars for that matter? I'm just wondering?
On October 15 2012 07:16 MountainDewJunkie wrote: We can't say what we would do in a similar situation. Like we'd ever know. The amount of fear and adrenaline would certain derail your plans and you would probably not act rationally. I guess I would expect more control from a former cop, but he is retired, and he is only human. Though you don't read about many headshots involving burglaries. Perhaps his training had this result: pretty good at aiming, and pretty fearful. Result? Immediate headshot.
Is it common for cops in the US to shoot people in the head? Or burglars for that matter? I'm just wondering?
Bullets don't always go where you plan, cops are trained to shoot for center of mass which is your chest.
Human beings really do create their own hell. Its hard to feel sorry for the father, he's in an easily avoidable situation that he caused. Its sad, but there us just too much tragedy in the world against innocent people who do everything right. For this man I have nothing but contempt and mild amusement at his karma. Grown man, father and a cop and yet he's just a stupid boy. You really can not save people from themselves. Its a pity about the son.
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.
Well, it's not uncommon you hear stories about cops shooting an unarmed man, or in the back, especially if he's... not pale. I really don't hear much about headshots.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm afraid I can't say the same. Your inability to distinguish me from the poster Iodeet leaves me wondering whether or not you can read. Here are my posts in this thread so far:
On October 15 2012 05:12 Stutters695 wrote: [quote]
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
Wow, how did that go so far over your head? There is a HUGE difference between wanting to kill someone and defending yourself. If you can't understand that I don't think you have any business in this discussion.
By wielding a gun you accept that there is a possibility that you will shoot someone. Thus by buying a gun, you express that you are willing to shoot someone. If you don't understand that you don't belong near a gun.
You're trying to sugar coat killing people by using a prettier word, 'defense'. It just so happens that you yourself said that defense entails shooting someone at center of mass, which is a pretty efficient way of killing somebody.
So again, if you want to use self defense as an argument for general gun ownership, don't give me bullshit about the majority of gun owners not being willing to kill people.
On October 15 2012 04:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So this man had every intention of killing anyone that entered his home. He's an officer, so he has the know-how to apprehend without using deadly force... Not to mention you're not supposed to go for killshots unless your life is threatened. Certainly you'd feel threatened if a stranger were in your home. But to kill him? Immediately? Don't people shoot at the knees anymore?
It isn't as simple as having the know-how. Seeing as he had retired it wasn't like he was carrying nonlethal weapons. Of course you'd like to think a cop would be level headed enough to inform the intruder he was armed and demand he identify himself but that's not as simple as it sounds.
Although I am pro gun control I think this exemplifies the need for family training on having a gun in the household. My ex had a dad who owned a few guns and lived in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. Anytime someone came over late (parents asleep) her and her sister were told to use the front door and turn on the hallway light as soon as they got in. Although it seems controlling to a certain extent, if a family is prone to pull a gun on a robber, a discussion and simple protocols could easily prevent so many accidental shootings without infringing on gun owners rights in a way like lessening castle doctrine would.
These accidents are so unnecessary it's sad.
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
That's completely bullshit. The only people who think like that are either mentally retarded are immature teenagers. If that is really the case you should stop socializing with such stupid . and it's
I don't socialize with stupid people. I believe you are the ignorant one here. It's simply an anger thing. People want others to feel their pain. When they are fucked they want to fuck someone else in return. It's a vicious cycle. Of course everyone doesn't think this way but it's extremely prevelant mindset in the low-middle class who are the majority of the population.
You can't call bullshit on this from looking down from Canada. I think I have a much better understanding of what goes on in my country. I have lived in the cities in the suburbs and the boondocks and find the same thing no matter where I go.
Different people with different mindsets, but still the desire to hurt someone else.
I lived in new orleans for 6 years, and currently in los angeles for the past 8.
On October 15 2012 05:23 lodeet wrote:
This is why I don't care to own a gun, because they are fucking dangerous. I have shot many different types of hand guns and rifles and I can respect the power and devastation of the weapon. You cannot trust people to be responsible with guns it will just never happen and the current laws gives anyone an excuse to fire on an intruder. I don't necessarily have an issue with being able to protect yourself in your own home, but most people that I meet that like to own guns make it a point that they wish someone would break in just for an excuse to kill. I think it's sick and from my experience it's a mentality the majority of people I know have.
Your own statement is what leads me to believe the "majority of people you know" (as you put it) are mentally incapable of owning a firearm in a mature and safe way.
Yes it's true and I don't understand why you try to argue as I said people I KNOW and have met. All I am saying the majority of people I have met in my life are ignorant fucks doing the same stupid shit which leaves me to believe, based on my experiences, that the majority of the populace falls under the same category. And it is not secret that this is true. While that doesn't mean they are all out to kill each other. It just means most people aren't logical thinkers and are bound to be completely irrational. They can be mentally capable of owning and controling a firearm, but not smart enough to set proper procedures and set certain constraints in place to prevent accidents. Just because they will justify some excuse in their head as why a certain scenario wouldn't happen or how they would potentially prevent it. People don't set up enough safe guards probably because of ego and other dumb shit I cannot fathom.
Regardless though if you still think people don't use self defense as an excuse to kill someone I think you are very sheltered. Whether majority or not it's still a lot of people.
Yes, I'm very sheltered because I think it's a ridiculous notion to believe most people who own guns are waiting for an excuse to use it to kill someone. Lol........
On October 15 2012 05:25 Slardar wrote: Honestly what is the purpose of a fucking gun if you just shoot someone in the head? You have someone at gun point in the dark, you don't say "HANDS UP" OR at least threaten "MOVE ANOTHER INCH AND I'LL CAP YOUR ASS"?
This shit is inconceivably retarded that I would say it's a murder case. A trained cop just does that?
The purpose of a gun is to kill and that is all. How is that so hard to understand? Are the youth so brainwashed by media that they think a gun can be precisely aimed to disarm without sacrificing your safety in such a situation? Get with reality you use a gun to kill.
You know it's often a good idea to re-evaluate your viewpoint when you end up arguing against yourself. Here are your points 1. The purpose of a gun is to kill (not to wound) 2. People should own guns 3. People who own guns don't plan on killing people
What The Fuck
I mean seriously, any argument for gun ownership based on the 'self defense' line of thinking is preceded by the willingness to kill.
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.
Notice how none of them have been edited? Good talk.
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
Depends on the state. I don't know about illinois.
On October 15 2012 07:36 tokicheese wrote:I bet peanuts kill more people than that in a year in Canada.
Lol at that line
Seriously why are people even bringing guns up ? The issue here isn't so much guns as it is "not controlling one's fear properly" had he simply warned the intruder before shooting, this would not have happened, but don't think anyone here can claim they would be able to control themselves in a situation like that. I'd say mistakes happen.
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
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.
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 07:06 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 07:19 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well a common talking point in gun threads (one that I admittedly have raised) is that storing guns safely makes them inaccessible in times of dire need. Maybe the guy had a fingerprint gun safe, or kept a loaded gun under his pillow?
On October 12 2012 14:54 epicanthic wrote: Is it legal in the US to shoot trespassers on sight? Self-defense is one thing, but this is something else entirely.
It's not a national law. It depends on the state you are in.
The majority of US states only allow the use of deadly force if the shooter's life is in danger. Often this means that you need to warn an intruder and retreat to some place like your bedroom. If they still come after you, you're probably legal to use deadly force,
Some states (maybe a dozen or so) follow some sort of "castle doctrine" which gives the the home owner more leeway on using deadly force in their *home* (you can't just shoot someone for walking on your grass). Again, the scope of those laws vary from state to state. Typically it involves not needing to retreat and/or give warning and limiting what sort of legal action can be taken against the shooter.
Almost the same kind of thing except no stand your ground thing going on. The man was sober, the light condition is presumably poor, and the girl isn't dead afaik. Not a tragic ending but could have been if the man had a better aim.
EPT
