Jump to content


Photo

this is why the US needs gun control


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#41 Rattuskid

Rattuskid

    I used to be somebody noteworthy... I think

  • Members
  • 1,064 posts
  • Projects:Osmium (mostly dead), Immunizer (crib death) and Spritezkrieg (also crib death)
  •  Rattus Norvegicus (bitch)

Posted 13 October 2009 - 06:19 AM

As Matias said if they're gonna break in threaten to blow their heads off,if they come towards you shoot them in the foot.
But don't kill them.
When you do you become a murderer "self defence" of not.


A big negative on the first part there. In the US legal system, shooting to wound counts as both attempt-to-kill and not. Essentially shooting a perp in the foot is twisted at trial into you acting with potentially deadly force when you clearly knew deadly force wasn't need.

This means the guy sues your ass for everything you own and you may go to jail instead of him.

Also, I'd like to bring up the case where the college kid went to his garage with a katana. He killed the guy who broke in because the man ATTACKED HIM. The man went after someone else, even though he could see the FUCKING SWORD. This means he was either high, crazy, or both. Any way though, someone that far gone could have been deadly.

Breaking into someone's home or business while occupied doesn't indicate that they are just doing so to scrape out a living. It means they are trespassing with little regard for the people there, and if armed almost certainly can be counted as a potential deadly threat.

Also, some women carry for reasons other than property. Namely, they don't want to get raped. But oh wait, maybe the rapist is just a man who hasn't fucked in years, and is entitled to get his jollies and keep his life, right?

Edited by Rattuskid, 13 October 2009 - 06:20 AM.

Being a total douche.

#42 m@tt

m@tt

    #######

  • Project Team
  • 4,056 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member

Posted 13 October 2009 - 08:45 AM

And facts and logic indicate: less guns = less people dieing from guns. Its pretty obvious. If there were proper gun laws, he wouldn't have gone stright out, grabbed his gun, and filled his fiance with lead.


I still don't understand this logic, because it's utterly faulty. For comparison; in Germany it is MUCH harder to attain, license for, and afford a car than in the US. Less people die per capita in car accidents there. However, they have 'proper' vehicle laws in Germany, and the potentially deadly machines are well regulated. So why do people still die in Germany of car accidents?


There's nothing wrong with the logic, you're just interpreting it wrong. He was saying if there are better controls, there will be less deaths. You applied to to cars and said why are there any deaths in Germany when there are better car control laws. Less cars = less deaths by car, not zero deaths by car.

And cars and guns are not a good comparison. You drive cars for sustained periods of time, all it takes is one lapse of concentration during that time or to be looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time, and an accident could happen. That's a bit different to pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, unless you walk about all day with a loaded gun in your hand (i.e. not holstered) with the safety off.
Posted Image

#43 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:22 AM

Doesn't give a shit?

About the law. Why should the law protect him, when he has flouted and broken that same code of law?

Not all criminals are evil people seeking to kill you.

So you're saying it's perfectly OK for him to break into my house and steal my stuff that I paid for with my money. Whether murderer or simple burglar, that ain't right. That shit is mine. The house is mine. It should be immutably mine to defend against any intruder.

Sometimes it could be someone who hasn't eaten for a week and is just hungry but then again it could be someone who is stealing shit to pay for drugs or whatever.

Irrelevant to the argument. Causa non excusat.

His/Her life still matters and they're entitled to it.

And I'm entitled to my own life, and to enjoy my life without fear of having my shit stolen or my life threatened. And my life certainly matters more than theirs, especially when they haven't given any regard for the consequences of their actions toward me.

When you do you become a murderer "self defence" of not.

No, you don't. IMO, killing in self defence isn't even manslaughter. I'm sure you approve of soldiers defending themselves with lethal force...

My rough standpoint, summarised, is thus:

Anyone who breaks into anyone's home automatically forfeits their right to protection under law from anything the owner of that house may choose to do (with sex offence being the obvious exception), including (but not limited to) beating them hard enough to cave their head in or sticking them with the kitchen knife.

People should have the right to defend themselves, their property and any guest within it, to the maximum extent. This should apply up to (and including) chasing the burglar down the street, tackling him to the ground with the shit he stole, and beating the living shit out of him. Should be immune from being sued.

Guns should be legal (subject to psychometric assessment, interview and safety training) to be kept within the home for defence purposes.

When using, the user should be legally required to warn first. After that, a kill shot or anything in between is fair game.

#44 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 13 October 2009 - 08:46 PM

When you kill someone, you're a murderer, like it or not.

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#45 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:52 PM

Fuck it. I can live with that.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#46 Bart

Bart

  • Network Admins
  • 8,524 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Network Leader

Posted 13 October 2009 - 10:06 PM

Literally tons of drugs, people, and weapons flow across the US borders with Mexico and Canada. More people and drugs still come in through Miami from Cuba. Container ships from China on the west coast only get every 20th container scanned.

If all this volume of contraband was flowing into the UK, you'd run out of places to STORE IT.

You're using absolute amounts in a context where it's obviously about relativity. In any case, guns are available enough for criminals in Europe, so that's not the reason why those laws work over here.
bartvh | Join me, make your signature small!
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

#47 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:09 PM

Fuck it. I can live with that.


In the context of making myself NOT get burgled/raped/whatever the fuck else he broke into my house for, so can I.

#48 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:13 PM

In the context of making myself NOT get burgled/raped/whatever the fuck else he broke into my house for, so can I.

I was hoping that this was obvious for a certain context. So yeah.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#49 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:18 PM

Alright man, but don't forget you coulda just gotten him on the floor and called the cops on him instead of putting one in his brain. Think of his mother.

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#50 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:25 PM

If the parents were worth a damn, the idiot wouldn't be trying to rob my house.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#51 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 9,126 posts
  • Location:Indiana
  • Projects:Writing Words With Letters
  •  I Help
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:26 PM

Ohhhhh... his mother... :shiftee:

#52 Rattuskid

Rattuskid

    I used to be somebody noteworthy... I think

  • Members
  • 1,064 posts
  • Projects:Osmium (mostly dead), Immunizer (crib death) and Spritezkrieg (also crib death)
  •  Rattus Norvegicus (bitch)

Posted 14 October 2009 - 03:09 AM

There's nothing wrong with the logic, you're just interpreting it wrong. He was saying if there are better controls, there will be less deaths.


No. He said if there were better controls this one incident would not have happened, that it would have been possible to legislate stupid away.

Cars are and excellent analogy, mostly because they are more deadly. Essentially, less cars would mean less car deaths, but going from 15% to 5% still means that 5% exists. IE, that this particular incident would have undoubtedly fallen in the dropped 10%. To say this wouldn't have happened would have to assume that 'proper laws' drop the accident rate to nil.

This is why the logic is faulty.

When you kill someone, you're a murderer, like it or not.


So veterans are murderers? Executioners for the condemned too?

Edited by Rattuskid, 14 October 2009 - 03:10 AM.

Being a total douche.

#53 Downfall

Downfall

    Scenarist

  • Members
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Chicago,USA
  •  There is one?

Posted 14 October 2009 - 03:55 AM

So veterans are murderers? Executioners for the condemned too?


In a technical sense yes they are. Knowing that what they are doing is premeditated, to me, that makes them a murderer. It’s just when you add all the bells and whistles, for lack of a better term, to what they did (protecting the country, ridding of an individual whose harmed the community in a way, etc), it makes the word murderer turn into hero or rightful person.

Now in no way am I bashing veterans. I know what risks they took and for what their purpose were to them. And I'm glad that they made it out alive and feel bad for those who didn't. But that doesn't change on what they did no matter how you spin the word around.
"Human beings make strange fauna and flora. From a distance they appear negligible; up close they are apt to appear ugly and malicious."
Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer


Posted Image

Posted Image

#54 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 9,126 posts
  • Location:Indiana
  • Projects:Writing Words With Letters
  •  I Help
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:02 AM

Are Veterans murderers? It's like self defense, exept its your own countries defence. According to the laws of the universe, killing in order to promote your own safety is not murder. So a veteran is not a murderer, unless they went out of their way to rape and kill some Korean kids. According to the laws of the universe... or whoever stated that.

Now in no way am I bashing veterans.

Why not? It's Revora; the world's hot spot for grudging philosophers. Heck, I called Abraham Lincoln a silly, overrated logger.

#55 Downfall

Downfall

    Scenarist

  • Members
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Chicago,USA
  •  There is one?

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:15 AM

So you are saying that the man who shot is fiancée is in no way a murder because it was in self-defense? Hardly. He shot and killed her with malice in his intentions. Unprovoked, other than his little imagination getting to the best of him.

And when killing is in your forethought, it becomes premeditated. And when someone is killed by a person who premeditated it, the individual has become a murder.
"Human beings make strange fauna and flora. From a distance they appear negligible; up close they are apt to appear ugly and malicious."
Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer


Posted Image

Posted Image

#56 Rawlo

Rawlo

    Word Smith

  • Project Team
  • 1,616 posts
  • Location:australia
  •  as it turns out, was never actually a convict, go figure.

Posted 14 October 2009 - 10:45 AM

hmm, some of you really are bloody rednecks... you know that right? 'you have the right to kill any person who comes into your house for any reason without your expressed permission', how utterly fucked up is that? regardless of what your oppinion on that is, it is against the law to use more force then you need to defend yourself. you do not have the right to shoot someone armed with nothing but fists if they attack you. it doesn't matter whether you think you do. and regardless of whether the law states you can or you can't. this man didn't shoot a house invader, he shot his fiance. now if any of a number of restrictions on gun use had been in place, such needing to keep guns in a gunsafe had been in place, this would not have happened. and it's not even that which bothers me, it's more the fact that he doesn't suffer any true punishment other then the regret which he may or may not feel.

as to gun control laws reducing crimes that use fire arms? I can tell you, if you make it illigal to sell hand gun ammo to civillians, then the ammo required for said crimes becomes insanely expensive, because it has to be stolen/smuggled/home-made/etc. your average dick is not gonna have the resources to buy it in any reasonable ammount. the reason I specify hand guns, is because they're designed specifically for killing people in confined quarters. they're practically useless at range(read: hunting animals), and easy to conceil and can be weilded in small spaces.

Edited by Rawlo, 14 October 2009 - 10:47 AM.

The Least I Could Do - We all wished we were like this at one point
Ctrl+Alt+Del - A webcomic for the gamer in all of us
A final good night Burnie, sleep well mate, rest in peace
Goodbye Tig, you are sorely missed.
Goodbye to you aswell till, you'll also be missed

Xeno, RIP mate
"I'm going to go on the record and say that any substance abuse problem which creates women like that is ok by me"

#57 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 14 October 2009 - 11:27 AM

hmm, some of you really are bloody rednecks... you know that right? 'you have the right to kill any person who comes into your house for any reason without your expressed permission', how utterly fucked up is that? regardless of what your oppinion on that is, it is against the law to use more force then you need to defend yourself. you do not have the right to shoot someone armed with nothing but fists if they attack you. it doesn't matter whether you think you do. and regardless of whether the law states you can or you can't. this man didn't shoot a house invader, he shot his fiance. now if any of a number of restrictions on gun use had been in place, such needing to keep guns in a gunsafe had been in place, this would not have happened. and it's not even that which bothers me, it's more the fact that he doesn't suffer any true punishment other then the regret which he may or may not feel.

as to gun control laws reducing crimes that use fire arms? I can tell you, if you make it illigal to sell hand gun ammo to civillians, then the ammo required for said crimes becomes insanely expensive, because it has to be stolen/smuggled/home-made/etc. your average dick is not gonna have the resources to buy it in any reasonable ammount. the reason I specify hand guns, is because they're designed specifically for killing people in confined quarters. they're practically useless at range(read: hunting animals), and easy to conceil and can be weilded in small spaces.


Just for the record, I deleted my post because it was out of sync - I didn't realise there were many more posts after the post I wanted to reply to. :p Just lettin y'all know.

Anyway, on to business. I'm aware of the law regarding home defence, but it's a moral question. I think the homeowner probably was required to keep it in a gun safe, I just think warning is a better idea than direct shoot-to-kill. But I believe that any intruder into your house should not be legally protected from you doing serious-to-terminal damage to their person, regardless of which direction they're facing relative to you. And if they're getting away with property that isn't theirs, they can have one more little piece of lead that isn't theirs (although has their name on it) while they're at it.

#58 Rattuskid

Rattuskid

    I used to be somebody noteworthy... I think

  • Members
  • 1,064 posts
  • Projects:Osmium (mostly dead), Immunizer (crib death) and Spritezkrieg (also crib death)
  •  Rattus Norvegicus (bitch)

Posted 14 October 2009 - 01:42 PM

hmm, some of you really are bloody rednecks... you know that right? 'you have the right to kill any person who comes into your house for any reason without your expressed permission', how utterly fucked up is that? regardless of what your oppinion on that is, it is against the law to use more force then you need to defend yourself. you do not have the right to shoot someone armed with nothing but fists if they attack you. it doesn't matter whether you think you do. and regardless of whether the law states you can or you can't.


Against the law to use more force than I am attacked with? So if a man comes in wielding a knife, I have to run to the kitchen to grab one too? If he has a baseball bad I better hope I have a louisville slugger in my closet?

What about those matches that are inherently uneven? A 6'2" 200lb man in his youth CAN murder a 5'4" 90lb woman with just his fists. You do realize women carry arms here too, right?

Besides, I don't know about you, but I'm not superman. I can't tell at a glance if a man is or is not armed should he be hiding something in his coat.

this man didn't shoot a house invader, he shot his fiance. now if any of a number of restrictions on gun use had been in place, such needing to keep guns in a gunsafe had been in place, this would not have happened. and it's not even that which bothers me, it's more the fact that he doesn't suffer any true punishment other then the regret which he may or may not feel.


If he followed the three basic rules of gun safety, specifically rule #3, she would be alive. You can't legislate away one man's stupidity, and in trying to do so you disarm any number of other legitimate users who would need a firearm in less time than it takes to open a safe. Besides, if you even had a law about needing a safe, who is to say this man would follow it. Google American Prohibition, and tell me people didn't drink alcohol when it was banned.

You also don't know about his punishment...

http://www.cbsnews.c...in5378015.shtml

Police even say his alibi is suspicious, and I wouldn't be surprised if her family sues and wins a wrongful death suit.

as to gun control laws reducing crimes that use fire arms? I can tell you, if you make it illigal to sell hand gun ammo to civillians, then the ammo required for said crimes becomes insanely expensive, because it has to be stolen/smuggled/home-made/etc. your average dick is not gonna have the resources to buy it in any reasonable ammount. the reason I specify hand guns, is because they're designed specifically for killing people in confined quarters. they're practically useless at range(read: hunting animals), and easy to conceil and can be weilded in small spaces.


Ammo is certainly easier to smuggle than guns, actually. Also there is quite a bit of overlap there. The .22lr round, a very small rimfire meant for shooting rabbits and the like is chambered in both rifles and pistols. Hell, 5.56, the round of the M16 is chambered for some pistols.

Also, you have no idea what your talking about with hunting with handguns. My father hunts deer with a .44 magnum revolver, and my buddy has a [url="http://"%20<a%20href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJz7bejbKQ""%20target="_blank">"</a>"]S&W 460[/url], which is designed to hunt elk, bear and other large game. The gun holds a tighter ground at 100 yards than my rifle.

I don't know why Europeans (save for the Swiss and arguably Italians) fear civilian gun ownership so much considering that 60 years ago you had a prime example why governments can't always be trusted with firearms...

The facts are, concealed carry permit holders in the US are less likely to use their weapons in a crime than a police officer is. Also, out of all title II weapons (full autos) regulated and registered since the 1934 Firearms Act in the US, only one (1) since 1934 has been used in a crime.
Being a total douche.

#59 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:35 PM

'you have the right to kill any person who comes into your house for any reason without your expressed permission', how utterly fucked up is that?


I have the right to shoot any fucktards who dare to break in to steal my posessions. You're twisting our words here.

regardless of what your oppinion on that is, it is against the law to use more force then you need to defend yourself. you do not have the right to shoot someone armed with nothing but fists if they attack you.


So, if a guy wants to rape a girl using no weapon, the girl isn't allowed to use pepperspray?

it doesn't matter whether you think you do. and regardless of whether the law states you can or you can't. this man didn't shoot a house invader, he shot his fiance. now if any of a number of restrictions on gun use had been in place, such needing to keep guns in a gunsafe had been in place, this would not have happened. and it's not even that which bothers me, it's more the fact that he doesn't suffer any true punishment other then the regret which he may or may not feel.


That's just one idiot guy using a gun. Not an idiot gun using a guy. Really, think of the many times a gun has saved the life of someone.
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#60 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 9,126 posts
  • Location:Indiana
  • Projects:Writing Words With Letters
  •  I Help
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 14 October 2009 - 07:36 PM

Vengeance should be legalized.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users