RE: California's gun restrictions are working!

RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 4:09:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Just because you want them to be a crime here doesn't make it true. Self defense is the most basic human right, just because you are proud of suppressing doesn't change that. I always heard the most basic human right was the right to life... that by the way it is the right you protect with self defence. So you agree with me. No I said the opposite of what you were implying I got that:) no english problem on your behalf there:) but he wont get it

eulero83 -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 7:03:00 AM)
To be fair I suspect this is quite the core of the cultural differences I was talking about. So I would understand if he sincerely thought I was making a point in his direction. The fact I was implying self defence is subordinate to the right to life (otherwise it would be void) meaning also the other person's right to life, is probably odd and aliene to him.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 8:02:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 To be fair I suspect this is quite the core of the cultural differences I was talking about. So I would understand if he sincerely thought I was making a point in his direction. The fact I was implying self defence is subordinate to the right to life (otherwise it would be void) meaning also the other person's right to life, is probably odd and aliene to him. The right to life is just that my right to my life. If someone is endangering that and I have no way to come out of the situation alive unless I take a life then I will take a life ie self defense. What you seem to not understand is killing in self defense for 99.9 percent of responsible gun owners is the last resort. Leaving, attempting to reason and using the gun as a threat happen first. The fact is killing in self defense is rare. It doesn't happen often and regularly. Take an example that happened in my area recently: 2 men start to break into a woman's home. She calls 911 in the area a level one emergency gets an average police response in 6 minutes. Men break down the door and the woman levels her gun at them. They raise their hands unarmed and are held the remaining time that it takes for the cops to arrive. Once the robbers are booked they are linked to 6 other robberies 2 that ended in the rape of the homeowner and one in the murder one person. This is self defense... If she hadn't defended herself she'd likely have been raped or killed. Why do you hold the life of a criminal who intentionally put themselves in harms way by being a criminal to a higher right to life then an innocent person who did nothing but be in their home. Two nights ago Google ignored my request to avoid getto and took me through a very rough area. I was on my motorcycle and had three choices at a red light as this man harassed me then threatened me with sexual assault I could stand my ground pull my weapon I could stand my ground not pull my weapon or I could run the red light and flee... I ran the light. Why because it was the most responsible choice.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 9:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Just because you want them to be a crime here doesn't make it true. Self defense is the most basic human right, just because you are proud of suppressing doesn't change that. I always heard the most basic human right was the right to life... that by the way it is the right you protect with self defence. So you agree with me. No I said the opposite of what you were implying I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs.

PeonForHer -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 10:20:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs. The whole point is that there is no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 10:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs. The whole point is that there is no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'. When y decides that someone is going to die x has the right to see to it that it is not him. You forget that if x takes your moral position and dies and y afterwards kills someone else the math becomes y or x and x if y is willing to kill once he will do it again.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 10:45:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs. The whole point is that there is no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'. How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 10:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well. Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant. So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 10:56:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well. Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant. So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it. Are you really stupid enough to say that if I shoot an intruder that is worse than him trying to to shoot me? Who dresses you in the morning cause that requires more brains than you showed with that statement.

mnottertail -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:07:02 AM)
NO, he did not say that, you said that stupid shit. Seems to me intruders dont always have a gun. Take the case in minnesota, the guy was convicted after putting them down, he gave them coup de grace finishes. At that point the deal was murder.

AQRMZ -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:10:10 AM)
I usually make an attempt to remain courteous and polite, BUT, in the case of any individuals defending the rights of the criminal, and especially those of you that are not citizens of the USA, then, YES, I said criminal, IF he is in my house, on my property, in my car, on the public sidewalk, at the park, or in ____________________ you fuckin name it; AND he is threating my life or the life and safety of anyone in my presence, and I can manage it, he is one fuckin sorry ass. AND remember: big can hurt little, hard can injure soft, sharp can poke holes, OK you get the idea, I ain't gonna spell it out for you any more. Any of you fucking pro-criminal, anti-gun jerks have a problem with that, then just sit back and make a will. Cause we all will just shake our heads when it happens to you. NOW, having said all of the above, if I could I would de-escalate the problem as I have done in the past; I have and would again and then things would settle down as they have before. Cops would be called or the dude would just bug on out of the place. OH AND THANK THE COSMOS FOR THE "HIDE" BUTTON ON HERE. SAVES A LOT OF SPACE ON THE PAGE AND DOESN'T WEAR OUT THE SCROLL BUTTON SO MUCH.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:13:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Are you really stupid enough to say that if I shoot an intruder that is worse than him trying to to shoot me? Who dresses you in the morning cause that requires more brains than you showed with that statement. No, I'm stupid enough to realize that if I shoot someone, I'm the responsible party no matter who started the fracas. Period. Anywhere outside of the US is likely to face a minimum of a manslaughter charge and possibly murder. But of course, in the US you can cop a plea of self defense or some stupid SYG defense and get away with it. Anywhere else would require an immense and almost insurmountable rock-solid evidence from independent witnesses with statements signed in triplicate (and probably in blood) and all caught on CCTV for corroboration with a top-notch QC/lawyer to even get a defense plea of any sort at all. Only in America.... [8\|]

PeonForHer -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs. The whole point is that there is no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'. When y decides that someone is going to die x has the right to see to it that it is not him. You forget that if x takes your moral position and dies and y afterwards kills someone else the math becomes y or x and x if y is willing to kill once he will do it again. I was stating how the principle is supposed to work, Bama. You are shooting the messenger, here (excuse the pun). The corollary would be that X gets to defend himself against Y, but he doesn't get to kill Y in the process. He doesn't get to trade away Y's life for his own safety. Now, whether or not that principle can be made to work in practice is something else. It's hard principle to keep to, I know. But, as far as I can see, it remains a principle for most people, most of the time, even if they're not conscious of it. This is why people generally feel bad if they've killed someone - even if the person killed was intent on murder.

Kirata -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:27:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Anywhere else would require an immense and almost insurmountable rock-solid evidence from independent witnesses with statements signed in triplicate (and probably in blood) and all caught on CCTV for corroboration with a top-notch QC/lawyer to even get a defense plea of any sort at all. Only in America.... [8\|] Well I don't know that it's only in America, but why would anyone anywhere want to make it next to impossible for a person to mount a defense? K.

eulero83 -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:31:29 AM)
I think no one is questioning that's self defence when someone is actually trying to shoot at you, but between "it's reasonable to think" and "without any doubt" is where the protection of the right of life comes in question. It also comes in question when you move from the "duty to retreat" to the "stand your ground" principles.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well. Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant. So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it. In your story about the steak knife the broomstick and your stepson how much time did you spend in jail. You committed the final act so the legal cost should have, according to you logic been on you.

PeonForHer -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:33:03 AM)
FR Frigging hell, must this always come back to 'You're either on the defender's side, or you're on the attacker's side'? Does it take a grenade to blow a hole in the wall around that?

AQRMZ -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:37:20 AM)
G fuckin C what is with you pee? How in the fuckin hell can you ever be on an attackers side? When it happens to you or to yours, then you can run and duck and hide and let the shit happen. Tell us then, if of course you or your kids survive, what you think. YEAH RIGHT.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Anywhere else would require an immense and almost insurmountable rock-solid evidence from independent witnesses with statements signed in triplicate (and probably in blood) and all caught on CCTV for corroboration with a top-notch QC/lawyer to even get a defense plea of any sort at all. Only in America.... [8\|] Well I don't know that it's only in America, but why would anyone anywhere want to make it next to impossible for a person to mount a defense? K. Because that's usually the case for most incidents... If you shoot someone dead, it's pretty much automatically at least a manslaughter charge just because you killed someone and for no other reason than that. In most cases, you'd be pretty hard-pushed to wriggle off such a charge without some really magnificent mitigating circumstances presented by a damned good lawyer to even file any sort of defense plea. It's one of those 'guilty until proven innocent' types of case because, quite simply, you killed someone... unless you can prove without doubt you didn't do it (the only reasonably acceptable defense), you're guilty of killing said person whether they were the assailant or the defendant. A bit like if you run someone up the ass with your truck - you're guilty of causing the accident (and the damage) unless you can prove that they reversed into you when you were stationary.

BamaD -> RE: California's gun restrictions are working! (8/27/2014 11:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs. The whole point is that there is no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'. When y decides that someone is going to die x has the right to see to it that it is not him. You forget that if x takes your moral position and dies and y afterwards kills someone else the math becomes y or x and x if y is willing to kill once he will do it again. I was stating how the principle is supposed to work, Bama. You are shooting the messenger, here (excuse the pun). The corollary would be that X gets to defend himself against Y, but he doesn't get to kill Y in the process. He doesn't get to trade away Y's life for his own safety. Now, whether or not that principle can be made to work in practice is something else. It's hard principle to keep to, I know. But, as far as I can see, it remains a principle for most people, most of the time, even if they're not conscious of it. This is why people generally feel bad if they've killed someone - even if the person killed was intent on murder. You suffer from the delusion that most anti gun people do. Shooting someone is the last line of defense. If you think shooting to wound (arm leg and so on) you have seen to many movies. As pointed out before I have been in FOUR situations where, according to your fantasy, I would have just started blasting away. You would be amazed how coming face to face with their own mortality changes a thugs view of the world. I haven't had to shoot any of them. You simply refuse to take a realistic view of legitimate gun owners.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875