Gun don't kill people - Lead poisoning kils people

myrus316

Okay, you want relevant? If I was on the jury, I'd let the guy go too. You know why? cause I have never needed to swallow a tampon.
Sometimes, trying to understand the guy who is violating your home is dangerous. That's how I feel about Terrorism too. I really don't give a rat's ass why they hate us, I'd rather kill them.
Sometimes enough is enough.

Congrats, you blossomed from baby troll into full-blown reactionary asshat. Sorry man, but you've completely missed the point of the whole "human being" thing. This has nothing to do with terrorism, but thank you so much for that telling look into your psyche. "I'd rather kill them"??!! Jeez man, I thought Neanderthals like you only existed in my paranoid mind. Do you ever actually consider anyone else's point of view? Feel free to phrase your rebuttal monosyllabically.

freeboater, thanks, you too :)

There is a difference between self-defense and vigilanteism--and self-defense is losing out here. I agree with the NRA position: defend yourself, your family, with the real threat of lethal force but try to avoid it. Use the threat to hopefuly bring about a peaceful arrest or end. How this can be considered weak or absurd is beyond me.

//my faith in humanity deeper into the negative

Gun nuts seem to think that it's their legal right to shoot anybody they want.. threatened or not..

Yep. Sure do. Old woman at line at the store writing a check in the 10-or-less aisle? Damn right we think it's our "right" to blow 'em away! Hell, they were gonna' die soon anyway.

shiat, someone looked at me funny on the street yesterday. So I shot 'em. It's my damned right.

Yep. Randomly gunning down anyone for any reason. That's exactly how we all feel. Has absolutely nothing to do with the fact this scumbag was in the middle of commiting a crime while illegally on one's own property. Nope. We're just all for that random violence.

And you wonder why all us "gun-nuts" think you "grabbers" are all irrational, paranoid little pussies when you start wimpering about shoot-outs in the streets...

oihorse

And just what are Hamilton's family defending? The right to go on someone else's property and steal?

That's the beauty of revenge and avenging.

The Clake kills Hamilton for a vehicle.
So, Hamilton's family should kill Clarke coz he killed Hamilton.

This just seems like a good start to a family feud. Then, we could have Clarke's family kill a Hamilton and then Hamilton would kill a Clarke until one family runs out of family members.

tmwsiy: Good point, that is why i voted libertarian.

How did that turn out for you?

Try not voting. The result will be the same.

"tmwsiy: Good point, that is why i voted libertarian.

How did that turn out for you?

Try not voting. The result will be the same."


Agreed, but lets not start a politcal flamewar here.

btw, turned out great. there's a lot to be said for integrity.

Fantastic_Dan


Waaaaay too late, but, that's American History X. Great movie.


-BeanFlicker

Ox,

Clinical reason or not, it's my life and property or theirs. Someone with a mental illness robbing, raping and then killing my wife in no way lessons the horror of the incedent, forgives it, or makes it better. Thus I will do everything in my power up to and including ending the life of anyone who threatens or appears to threaten my family or property.

Of course these are all worst case scenarios. There is a ton of grey areas in between. Regardless, until you live and work with the mentally ill, until you are in the situation where you are being robbed and have to make the split second decision to use lethal force in the defence of you and yours - your comments are both rediculous and insulting to those that have the backbone, will and drive to both contribute to society, help their family and defend it all against the scum that would tear all that down.

Its a shame you think you need the EU and China to protect you from mere comments. You'll be so surprised when their governement (and ANY governemnt including the US) fails to protect your family. At that point its too late.

Horse

Ox

you represent a part of the human spirit I can respect.
however, if some of the guys from my neighborhood ever got ahold of you you'd want a gun nut in your corner

you obviously don't understand what some folks are capable of...if you did you'd be a bit less friendly, and a bit more jaded like me :o). humans, they can be angles or devils if you've only met angles I can see how your comments would make sense. I know far too many devils, you wouldn't believe it. enjoy canada.

Ouroborus

mr0x: Hehe, I'm sure Mr. Clark lost more money in lawyers defending himself than the all-terrain vehicle cost.

since a grand jury isn't a criminal trial, I don't think he's spent anything

That's good to know. Changes my entire perspective on killing then. I need to put something in my shed and wait ...

It's a little weird to be allowed to assume that someone committing one crime (stealing your stuff) is going to commit another (hurting you) that you should preemptively respond to.

Suppose you're in your accountant's office going over your finances and from the records you're looking at, you realize he's overcharged you. Can you leap from this to the assumption that he's going to attack you and then pull out your gun and blow him away?

I think there has to be some plausible evidence that there's something to be defending yourself against. If the guy at the shed really did turn to go towards the house, that's reason enough for me. If not, i think the guy should be in trouble.

Not doubting that the police are overworked and stretched thin, but pulling the trigger in this instance was, at the very least, illegal in New Jersey no matter what the jury said.

"I didn't see if anyone else had mentioned this, but even if the homeowner doesn't get convicted of a crime, he may still have to endure a civil trial for "wrongful death" from the dead guy's family."

Again this is why I love my state of Colorado. Under the "make my day" law, you are immune from both criminal prosecution and civil liability.

grabbers? What does that mean?

Okay kiddies, you've had your say, what you figure passes for an "opinion" has been noted and laughed at.

Back to the PlayStation FPS gunslinging now, Rambo.

Thanks for taking a shiate on real gun owners.

People who don't understand analogies shouldn't be allowed to use them.

and

People who talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch.


One is a movie quote the other.......

cot-

You've missed my point. I would gladly give my life to cure cancer. I'm talking about the life of a hypothetical "innocent". This is a very old moral and philosophical argument.

But just to apply it to your post... you say you'd sacrifice the life of your own child? Do you actually have kids? I wouldn't be too hasty making statements like that without thinking them through. But just to take it a little further, what if you had to perform the sacrifice? What if you had to do it with a chainsaw? What if it wasn't just one life, but the lives of your whole family? Would you kill your mother to cure cancer?

...and then found out the next week you had terminal cancer and were going to be dead in a month anyways? Sounds like a bad twilight zone episode...

How about this one: What if you hacked your innocent child up with a chainsaw the day before scientists discovered the cure by themselves?

You best recognize.

How'm I doing?

Steve French

You amuse me

Cot,

You are presenting to vastly different situations.

An accountant ripping you off does not compare to some stranger breaking and entering and then advancing upon your person after they've been told to stop. You need to step back and think about this a little more clearly.

Horse

You guys saying a person deserves to be killed for trying to steal, you're from Iran, aren't you?

tmwsiy: Agreed, but lets not start a politcal flamewar here.

Oh I'm right with you--as one libertarian to another even.

It's my leanings as a libertarian (please notice the lower-case "l") that have led me to conclude that voting isn't just pointless, but quite counter-productive. But I also agree with you that this is the topic for another thread, so I'm digressing...

Webgrunt

Why do you hate America?

"How about this one: What if you hacked your innocent child up with a chainsaw the day before scientists discovered the cure by themselves?"

Scientists curing all forms of cancer instantly? MUCH less problable than you finding out you're about to die anyways.

I don't have kids, but I'd certainly be happy to lose my whole family as well.

It's a little weird to be allowed to assume that someone committing one crime (stealing your stuff) is going to commit another (hurting you) that you should preemptively respond to.

So while you sit there struggling with your moral dilemna of "should I take another life in defense of my own", yours is taken to cover the crime. But hey, at least you were on the moral high ground, right?

/dirt nap.

ox
you know it's almost relieving that China and the EU will be more powerful than the us in 15-20 years so that we will no longer have to to listen to american and their backwards, idiot views

China? you'll be relieved when China is a world leader?
yes...their respect for human life is something the world has been waiting for...pffft. good luck with that one

Ox: what happens if this person had a mental problem? An actual clinical reason for not being normal? What happenes if he was simply hooked on a drug and needed money for a fix? doesn't that person deserve another chance? What if this person could of had their life turned around and become a valued member of society?

-Would have, could have, should have. Nobody made this guy unlawfully enter the property of the shooter, and barring any sort of mental defect, he had to have fully knowledge that his actions might lead to his death. He chose not to act as a responsible member of society, and the consequences of his actions are his problem.

I realize that no americans will buy this.. This would mean state aid in helping someone be well, and in a country that can't even get a national healthcare program like any other developed nation, that's pretty unlikely.. it's probably too "communist" for you fear mongers and McCarthyites any way...

-I realize that many people from outside of the US (by no means the entire world, but I've met enough people to qualify that at least a sizeable minority exists) have trouble believing that a person shouldn't leave their continued existance in the hands of the state. The people who enforce the laws where I live have no legal requirement to defend me. I will not sit by and allow someone else to say that I cannot defend myself. If you wish to live without weapons of your own, I won't stop you.

Gun nuts seem to think that it's their legal right to shoot anybody they want.. threatened or not..

-No, they don't. That is complete and utter horseshiat. I like to think I know something about proper gun ownership and gun use, and I don't think anyone has a blanket right to shoot whoever they wish. And if you look through the rest of the thread, plenty of other gun owners agree with me on that.

you know it's almost relieving that China and the EU will be more powerful than the us in 15-20 years so that we will no longer have to to listen to american and their backwards, idiot views..

-If you think China is better than the United States, you don't know what the hell is going on. The EU has other problems to deal with, the countries involved simply don't like to talk about it. I've never seen so many racist idiots as I've seen in Europe, just for starters.

Guns don't kill people, Gun Nuts americans who have seen too many movies and think they are entitled to take another life kill people.

-Gun nuts are by and large responsible owners of weapons. Only one class three weapon covered by the NFA acts has ever been known to have been used in crime, and that was a LEO who shot his informant in 1993. Gun nuts don't kill people, criminals with illegally bought firearms kill people.

oihorse: "An accountant ripping you off does not compare to some stranger breaking and entering and then advancing upon your person after they've been told to stop."

This is the first I've heart one of the nuts here actually saying they'd tell the guy to stop first or that he's advancing on you... but then that's really not shooting someone for stealing.

Two people didn't read my post. I said that if the guy at the shed made any sort of move that looked like he was heading towards the house I think the guy was justified in shooting him! If he didn't, it's a different story.

It's a little weird to be allowed to assume that someone committing one crime (stealing your stuff) is going to commit another (hurting you) that you should preemptively respond to.

Consider that the thief has made it clear that he has no respect for your personal property or privacy (trespassing to steal something from you). Is it really a stretch to assume that they wouldn't have much concern for your personal safety either?

webgrunt,

I'm saying if you are in the act of stealing form me and you get caught, you'd better run rather than advance toward me thereby making the possiblity that you intend to physically harm me.

At that point I act with whatever force I deem necessary with whatever is at hand to protect myself.

Horse

/I did get your sarcasm... at least I hope that was sarcasm

deselby,

Cool, when did I qualify as a nut? Can I be a cashew?

Salted please!

Horse

in the house - shoot repeatedly.
outside - call cops, play loud Wham! cd

There are some easy victims here, if I could be exactly sure which ones aren't packing, I might change professions.

You guys saying a person deserves to be killed for trying to steal, you're from Iran, aren't you?

I think they cut off a hand for that one.
that's just cruel.

/well, that's enough b.s. for me
have a good weekend ya'll try not to steal from anyone...especially me;)

GNNR:
"There for you apparently do have the qualifications? That's what you are saying here..."

Little biatch, thats a lie-- It is in no way what I said.

"While you may not KNOW that a person on your property or in your home stealing from you is armed and dangerous, you can't assume they are not."

Nor should you assume they are-- You are claiming the right to kill anyone YOU suspect. (e.g. scumbag "looking", posessed by the devil, black, etc.)

Your crystal ball is sounding more and more like simple like prejustice based on false generalizations.

Yeah, I'm out.

Stay out of my shed!!!

---------------------End of LIne-----------------------------

"Consider that the thief has made it clear that he has no respect for your personal property or privacy (trespassing to steal something from you). Is it really a stretch to assume that they wouldn't have much concern for your personal safety either?"

Yup-- Trespassers = murderers.

roughmarble,

You get the vote for funniest post!

God love the Wham for its criminal-deterring properties!!!

Horse

Don't any of you people have homeowners or renters insurance? I'd let the guy take my ATV and unplug the TV so i can get new ones, not take a human life over it.

This is the first I've heart one of the nuts here actually saying they'd tell the guy to stop first or that he's advancing on you...

Then you should read the farking thread, eh?

cot-

Ok... I'm throwing up my hands on this one. I was being figurative. Are you really unable to think beyond a specific example, or are you being obtuse on purpose?

No... wait... don't answer that. I'm done for the day.

Maybe someone else can explain it to you.

"Nobody made this guy unlawfully enter the property of the shooter, and barring any sort of mental defect, he had to have fully knowledge that his actions might lead to his death. He chose not to act as a responsible member of society, and the consequences of his actions are his problem."

That still doesn't absolve the shooter from their resposibility for having shot them.
(His responsibility, yes. Only his responsibility, no.)

oihorse: "Cool, when did I qualify as a nut? Can I be a cashew?"

I did a search for your posts and saw "His taking action means one less criminal to use up my tax dollars in prison, and one less loser to threaten my life and property." and saw that it was the same stuff as the shoot first people and assumed you were one of them. I just now looked at your other posts and you aren't actually at the far end of nutty.

Now, if we could get everyone here to agree that this following situation is wrong, then I'd consider it a victory for reason: You're awakened by a noise in the night. Someone is holding your VCR in his hands. You raise your gun and shoot him.

If people have just been forgetting to post that they actually do expect you to point the gun at him and tell him to freeze, stop, get on the ground, whatever and only fire when actually in danger, than say so. Otherwise, the people here are seriously insane.

Would you stop bringing up hypothetical situations about somebody pointing a gun at you and breaking in to your house. That is NOT what happenned in this case. The guy shot someone breaking into a shed while the shooter was still inside his house. he didn't interact with the thief in any way before he shot. The shooter broke the law in his state and should be punished.

DrBre,

Oh, I wasn't being sarcastic. When I'm being sarcastic, I lay it on REAL thick :)