Alright alright. The story i told was on oprah last year... for the record, the only people who were armed were the bad guys. The reason i brought it up was because i wanted an extreme case where almost any rational person would be prepared to use a gun as a method of self defense.
(the show was about forgivness. The surviving family member went on the show to be like "if i can forgive these guys, you should be able to forgive your son or daughter who broke a vase")
I just can't see the logic in disarming the populace. Evil men will always be armed, regardless of what kind of laws are in place. why not give lawful men a level playing field?
Right to bear...AK-47s?
Ok we take an armed home invasion.
Situation 1. Armed bandit enters. Everyone told to remain calm and not doing anything. People comply. Less tense situation. Stuff taken. bandit may or may not be caught 3 weeks later by cops.
Situation 2. Armed bandit enters, Father goes to get gun to protect family. Bandit sees gun. Tension rises considerably. The situation is at a lot more tense. Things could go very badly from here.
In most cases, an armed badnit usually doesn't want to use his gun. It's a power thing. No one can hold up a bank using a banana. The other thing to consider is who decides when you can shoot the bad guy and when you cant? Even bad guyshave a right to life that you can't take away. (its 130am and I'm tired, I'll try to illustrate my point more succinctly when I wake up.)
Situation 1. Armed bandit enters. Everyone told to remain calm and not doing anything. People comply. Less tense situation. Stuff taken. bandit may or may not be caught 3 weeks later by cops.
Situation 2. Armed bandit enters, Father goes to get gun to protect family. Bandit sees gun. Tension rises considerably. The situation is at a lot more tense. Things could go very badly from here.
In most cases, an armed badnit usually doesn't want to use his gun. It's a power thing. No one can hold up a bank using a banana. The other thing to consider is who decides when you can shoot the bad guy and when you cant? Even bad guyshave a right to life that you can't take away. (its 130am and I'm tired, I'll try to illustrate my point more succinctly when I wake up.)
-
Henrietta
that was a good post. but let me rebutt some of it.
In situation one, although hypothetically things could pan out like that, the bottom line remains that the family is putting their lives in the hands of a criminal. they are trusting that he does not want to kill or hurt them.
Why would you want to take that risk? A family in that situation ultimately has no control over their lives.
you're right, things could go badly in situation two. but badly for whom? the crminal could be scared off once he realizes he will have to fight if he wishes to remain. yes it's true he could choose violence, but he does so at considerable risk to himself. he's just as vulnerable to bullets as the people he's holding up.
the risk of instant death or harm is a far greater detterent to crime then the risk of potentially being captured by police. not to mention, facts have shown us that criminal justice is very rarely effective when it comes to prosecuting random acts of violence.
you mention a moral dilemma. i'll give you my short answer for now: any act that impeaches my liberty is punishable by death. you surrender all rights, including your right to life, when you stop acting with regard for the natural rights of others.
In situation one, although hypothetically things could pan out like that, the bottom line remains that the family is putting their lives in the hands of a criminal. they are trusting that he does not want to kill or hurt them.
Why would you want to take that risk? A family in that situation ultimately has no control over their lives.
you're right, things could go badly in situation two. but badly for whom? the crminal could be scared off once he realizes he will have to fight if he wishes to remain. yes it's true he could choose violence, but he does so at considerable risk to himself. he's just as vulnerable to bullets as the people he's holding up.
the risk of instant death or harm is a far greater detterent to crime then the risk of potentially being captured by police. not to mention, facts have shown us that criminal justice is very rarely effective when it comes to prosecuting random acts of violence.
you mention a moral dilemma. i'll give you my short answer for now: any act that impeaches my liberty is punishable by death. you surrender all rights, including your right to life, when you stop acting with regard for the natural rights of others.
Korzic wrote:Ok we take an armed home invasion.
Situation 1. Armed bandit enters. Everyone told to remain calm and not doing anything. People comply. Less tense situation. Stuff taken. bandit may or may not be caught 3 weeks later by cops.
Situation 2. Armed bandit enters, Father goes to get gun to protect family. Bandit sees gun. Tension rises considerably. The situation is at a lot more tense. Things could go very badly from here.
In most cases, an armed badnit usually doesn't want to use his gun. It's a power thing. No one can hold up a bank using a banana. The other thing to consider is who decides when you can shoot the bad guy and when you cant? Even bad guyshave a right to life that you can't take away. (its 130am and I'm tired, I'll try to illustrate my point more succinctly when I wake up.)
However, Situation 1 is not viable in the previous example given. The family didn't have any way to protect themselves. They possed no resistance to the armed intruders...and yet they still raped and killed the family members...what could an alarm have done for them? What could the police have done for them?
As far as legitimate reasons for armed defence. Basically if your life or the life of others is in danger, the use of deadly force is permited...as stated in weapons training before you are alowed to carry a concealed weapons here in MO.
As a side note here is some information that's may be worth reading:
http://home.comcast.net/~guy.smith2/Gun ... Screen.pdf
It's not only the moral dilemna its a legal one as well. You aren't allowed to shoot him in cold blood. Nor are you trained for what to do in a hostage situation. Are you willing to take a risk, that if you go get a gun and threaten a guy with another gun, that he might act sensibly and simply walk out of the house rather than panic and start taking hostages. And then you're right up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
On to the legal side. If you do shoot him and he dies. It's up to you to prove that he was acting in a manner that was threatening to your life to plead SD. Simply holding you up is not life threatening. Keep in mind if you're convicted you're looking at Man 1 or 2 which carries a jail sentence. And even if you get off that, you're still open to a civil suit.
On to the legal side. If you do shoot him and he dies. It's up to you to prove that he was acting in a manner that was threatening to your life to plead SD. Simply holding you up is not life threatening. Keep in mind if you're convicted you're looking at Man 1 or 2 which carries a jail sentence. And even if you get off that, you're still open to a civil suit.
Quote:
Also, superbombs are a part of an arms race that has yet to happen. Gun control is not an arms race. I'm competing with degenerates and america's enemies to see who has the bigger gun. Some people who feel like they need protection are perfectly content with mace.
And some people want a gun. How come you're right and they're not?
Because one has the potential to kill and the other doesn't. I think that's a huge factor in which is a more appropriate protection device. If you're going to go out of the way with some extreme rationale again such as the guy who was allergic to pepper spray, be my guest.
I hate giant eating machines!
My cousin the holistic healer
My cousin the holistic healer
mosaik wrote:How do you know? How can you say that for sure?
You can't. You have no idea how the situation might have played out had somebody in the family been armed. Sure it may have gone down exactly the same, but it also could have been prevented.
Lots of crime is prevented because of guns, you know.
So what do you want to do? Buy a gun? Live in a bomb shelter your whole life? Never talk to strangers? Shit happens. Don't let it consume you. As far as you know, I could be a stalker. Is that going to make you not post of this Forum anymore?
I hate giant eating machines!
My cousin the holistic healer
My cousin the holistic healer
no I think he just wants the right to buy a gun... so you got the first one right.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
Korzic wrote:It's not only the moral dilemna its a legal one as well. You aren't allowed to shoot him in cold blood. Nor are you trained for what to do in a hostage situation. Are you willing to take a risk, that if you go get a gun and threaten a guy with another gun, that he might act sensibly and simply walk out of the house rather than panic and start taking hostages. And then you're right up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
one of the first thing they teach you at Front Sight is not to take your weapon out unless you are going to use it. If i am ever threatened in my home and need my firearm, i will make the decision as to whether i'm prepared to use it or not before i take it out.
After that, i guess it's whoever has the faster trigger finger. Yes, i am willing to take that risk - after all, so is he.
On to the legal side. If you do shoot him and he dies. It's up to you to prove that he was acting in a manner that was threatening to your life to plead SD. Simply holding you up is not life threatening. Keep in mind if you're convicted you're looking at Man 1 or 2 which carries a jail sentence. And even if you get off that, you're still open to a civil suit.
This is all valid. But we all know how I feel about crime and punishment. I've got no answer for your legal argument except for that in a perfect world the legal ramifications wouldn't matter.
hpdfk wrote:Because one has the potential to kill and the other doesn't. I think that's a huge factor in which is a more appropriate protection device. If you're going to go out of the way with some extreme rationale again such as the guy who was allergic to pepper spray, be my guest.
Pepper spray has the potential to kill - you could force their mouth open and spray it in there, or if that doesn't work, beat them to death with the cannister.
Your arms have the potential to kill. So do your teeth, your legs, your hands.
The only way to prevent human beings from killing one another is to prevent them from SEEING one another.
I AM ME wrote:It would be the smae thing as alcohol, therefore children would not have acess to it (at least not more then they already do), we would have better access of what was going into our marijuana, if it's not an underground thing it's less taboo, and we obviously would have more power over it.
Your argument was that all you need is soil, seeds, and water. Guess what all people need now is soil, seeds, and water. Whether it's legal or not people are going to do it. And to be honest it's not much worse then alcohol.
I would say that alcohol is much more dangerous to the public and also more addictive then marijuana. Not to mention Nicotine is an extremely addictive drug, and people who smoke have much larger health risks.
alcohol has to be bought at a store, where as high school kids with a car can just as easily drive out to the country, pull over and loot a rancher's crop. it's ok when they do that now with corn or watermelons, but this is pot. with alcohol it's a process, it requires much more then soil water and seeds. water and seeds are easy to come by, but when pot is illegal, soil is hard to come by simply because it's illegal to raise a pot farm. people still do it, yes thats true, just like people still make bathtub moonshine.
alcohol has regulations on it, certain beverages can only have X amount of alcohol in them, and be only a certain proof. with so many types of weed and different potiencies, i don't see how any government can regulate weed to a cetain quality. and even if that were a posability, to where you could only buy up to a certain potiency at your local shop, there would still be a demand for more potient/cheeper pot.
it never ceases to amaze me how pro-pot people are mad at the american government and police agencies for making pot illegal, yet, police agencies and government agencies are the ones supplying the public with the substances. i'm sure some of you have seen the Crack the CIA video on GNN. what's even more depressing is the fact that one day while i was talking out loud a former state trooper told me that 99% of the time they caught someone trafficing drugs into the US, a drug cartel or people that actually put the drugs into that car put the finger on them. that's a buy off people, if you are going to set someone up, you set them up with a small amount of product, or a small amount of cash. i know damn well it's a buy off, people get pulled over for missing tail lights, no licence plate light, broken headlight. those are all little signals to the feds that, hey, i have your money, come take it and let us keep supplying America's habbit. it's to the point to where there's no drug busts anymore, only money busts. so technically you do have legal pot in this country, you can get pot in every country town, city, or metro-area, as long as the supplier is taxed.
We should be pissed people. We, the youth, should be revolutionizing the way politics in this country work. we should be banding together to make change, not marching in the streets. in case you haven't noticed, your not changing anyone's mind about the war, it doesn't matter how many psudo-coffins you carry, or how long the line of unemployment is. the only thing that matters, is that you do not vote. so no one panders to you and your needs or your desires. you don't vote because your too fucking gone with your drugs. and even if you did, there's so many of you that want pot legalized, that the whole world looks at the American youth and thinks were all fucking junkies. your fighting the establishment the wrong way. instead of trying to speak from the streets, we need to speak at the polls, and not by voting for a republican or a democrat or even one of those glorified lobbiest people that run for office just to get their point of view some attention. We need to run for office, we need to run on the premise of free will and what our constituents need. everyone else that has been in this program of 'us vs. them' politics are useless to us. they're already corrupt with corporate money. people all over the country vote in a certain pattern because daddy voted that way, mommy voted that way, because everyone of my relatives votes that way. they follow blindly what their party wants, what their party tells them to follow. WHY!?
the 60's were great, people were awakened or whatever but, they did not accomplish anything. not a godamn thing got done, those protests were just a few reasons to get together and get high. protest is a right, and god bless all of you that do it. but it's a sham, you were told that if you protest, people with authority will listen. that's not true, no one has or ever will listen to you. what you need to do is threaten the political structure by runing for office on your own premise, not taking any money from corporations, by making the demo/republi monster the minority. when you take over the school board, the city council, the state representative seat, and the state senator seats, they'll notice. when your in your state's house of representatives and it's time for a vote and everyone else votes along party lines and you vote on what you feel is right and what you feel your constituents need, people will notice. protesters will be your lobby groups, because unlike all the shut in's in office right now, you will listen. as long as you listen, they'll make your re-election signs, and they will electioneer for you. you don;t need money to run for office, you only need the will of the people, and the people will supply you with signs and stickers and other campaign needs. it's been done before, with much less. everybody assumes that national policies are the most important, but your wrong. state and local policies are the most important. those local spots are up for grabs, especially when no one votes.
but we don't vote, only 34% of us do, and i promise you that more than 68% of us do drugs. everything i just ranted about can work, if we got off our asses and throw away the fucking chemical weapons instead of putting them in our bodies. Hitler wanted Jews either dead or worked to death. Police and government agencies want us, the angry youth, either dead to the world with shit in our systems pretending to make a difference in the streets, or in jail without rights. Either way nothing, not one godamn thing, will be done.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
-
closeyoureyes
- Oskar Winner: 2006
- Posts: 4746
- Joined: 8/2/2003, 1:36 pm
Reno if I was American I'd stand up and salute you...but I'm not so I'm just gonna sit here and say bravo instead. You should seriously run for something you're a shoe in to win.
Queens Of The Stone Age-Someone's In The Wolf
Once you're lost in twillights's blue
You don't find your way, the way finds you...
Tempt the fates, beware the smile
It hides all the teeth, my dear,
What's behind them...
So glad you could stay
Forever
He steps between the trees, a crooked man
There's blood on the blade
Don't take his hand
You warm by the firelight, in twilight's blue
Shadows creep & dance the walls
He's creeping too..
So glad you could stay
Forever
<----------------- click and listen!the days go by and i keep getting more and more political.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown