Printable View
Grizzly, you're from the UK, right?
Over here, people with guns tend to know how to use them. The homeowner almost always comes out on top in gunfights, if the crooks are dumb enough to stay for a gunfight and not run off.
I must admit I'm a little tired of anti-gunners completely making up stuff to support their positions.
So what? Need I bust out that John Stuart Mills quote?Quote:
well everyone lives!
CR
Shooting with a shotgun on people carrying property will most likely make the property filled with bullet holes. Not a good way of protecting that property I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Personally I find that pretty loose, basically it's death penalty on burglary, (home invasions I can understand).Quote:
According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
But seriously, freed after:
"Hurry up guys, I'm not gonna let them go, I'm not gonna let them get away with this :daisy:"
"I can't take the chance of getting killed over this I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot"
"I don't want to, but if I go out what choise do I have"
"I have the right to protect myself and you understand that, the laws have been changed in this country since september the first"
"I'm gonna go out and find out"
"Here it goes buddy (click), you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going. (click)"
Some sounds that doesn't sound like shouting, then 10 seconds after the last click "Boom you're dead" (calm voice)
2 shots, then 7 seconds later one more shot.
(More stressy voice) "I had not choice, the came in the frontyard with me man, I had no choice"
Taken from Lemur's link.
IMO clear cut case of someone considering killing robbers and then claim self defense.
That's what I initially stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So I made a point and then I further stressed it by saying that the guy isn't in his primes and there was a decent chance that his eyesight isn't the best.Quote:
Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes.
It doesn't matter, it was a minor point. And I really don't feel like explaining why there is a decent chance that someone over 60 could have bad eyesight.
No, read what I said. But, using your style, here I can say that I know a lot of young men who take aim and in general take guns very seriously and tell you to stop bashing young people.Quote:
So if I was a young trigger happy person it would make you feel better about yourself? Did you know that a 20 year old is more likely not to take aim, just fire randomly at the target because they watch all those movies and see how gang bangers shoot their weapons? So yes your indeed age bashing wether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
This is getting boring. Believe what you want. If it makes you happy, yes, I was bashing old people. In fact, I hate old people. If I had the power, I'd kill them all. Burn them at the stake, like inquisition. Anyone over 40. To stop polluting beautiful planet Earth with their wrinkles.
you focused on his age, not his actions. Care to guess the percentage of over 60 that actually still have good eyesight and reactions? But then I am just being a smart***Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
the excuse of someone you realizes their arguement was weak in the first place. Why point out age in the arguement about a poor individual judgement, other then to bash the abilities of people of a certain age group.Quote:
It doesn't matter, it was a minor point. And I really don't feel like explaining why there is a decent chance that someone over 60 could have bad eyesight.
Again nice try but work a little harder - because you just argued yourself into my point. Don't make claims that your not willing to provide evidence and proof that its valid each and every time. You made a generalization about a specific individual without knowning if its actually valid or not. Discuss the man's general poor judgement in taking this action, and wether or not you feel the current law is valid or not. Age was not the issue for this man's actions in the first place.Quote:
No, read what I said. But, using your style, here I can say that I know a lot of young men who take aim and in general take guns very seriously and tell you to stop bashing young people.
Quote:
This is getting boring. Believe what you want. If it makes you happy, yes, I was bashing old people. In fact, I hate old people. If I had the power, I'd kill them all. Burn them at the stake, like inquisition. Anyone over 40. To stop polluting beautiful planet Earth with their wrinkles.
Oh I believe you think you know that because someone ages that they must necessarily have decreased abilities, as a general rule this would be correct when discussing the general population. However when speaking of individuals be very wary of making that generalization, because as we have seen there are always individuals that prove the generalization wrong. When discussing individual cases its best to stick to the individual facts. The man made a poor judgement on the situtation, it had nothing to do with his age and his ability to fire the weapon. The poor judgement was purely on his firing the weapon at the two criminals. A forty year old individual could make the same poor decision, just like a 20 year old, or any other age group for that matter.
Talking of ageism, I make better informed poor decisions these days.:shame:
classic :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Oh, my God, you really don't know when to quit, do you? I don't know the actual percentage but I'd guess it's a fair share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
No. But if you want to decide for me what I said or meant, feel free. I'm not going to argue that.Quote:
the excuse of someone you realizes their arguement was weak in the first place. Why point out age in the arguement about a poor individual judgement, other then to bash the abilities of people of a certain age group.
I never said it's valid each and every time, just often enough for it to be taken into consideration. Don't argue points I'd never made, it doesn't make sense. I see you're having problems so let me try to explain in more simple terms. Let's say I make a statement "In Russia people are poor" and you are trying to refute my claim by saying "It's not true, Roman Abramovich has 50-60 billions". I know that Roman Abramovich has loads of money, and that there are millions of rich Russian citizens but that doesn't change the fact that generally standard of living in Russia is low. Do you understand? Or I can say "Chemotherapy helps people suffering from tumors". You can think of millions of examples where it didn't help but that doesn't mean that it doesn't help at all. I can make a claim that is generally true, or is true in most cases. It doesn't have to be true in 100% of cases.Quote:
Again nice try but work a little harder - because you just argued yourself into my point. Don't make claims that your not willing to provide evidence and proof that its valid each and every time. You made a generalization about a specific individual without knowning if its actually valid or not. Discuss the man's general poor judgement in taking this action, and wether or not you feel the current law is valid or not. Age was not the issue for this man's actions in the first place.
My point was based on a simple logical premise:
A big portion of people over 60 have problems with their eyesight, with hand-eye coordination etc...
Mr. X is over 60
Therefore there is a decent chance that Mr. X could have problems with his eyesight.
Understand? Comprende? Verstehen Sie?
No, it doesn't mean that in 100% of cases people don't aim properly when they're over 60, I never said that, so lay off unless you can prove that peoples eyesight usually doesn't deteriorate in that age, because that was my point. And when there are other peoples lives at stake, even 10% is enough for me to make a case. I don't want to think about whether my kid is going to be close when tenth trigger happy idiot refuse to listen to the police and goes on a killing spree. As I said in my first post, they should lock him up and throw away the key.
Naw I know when to quit - after the individual admits that he initially spoke bullocks, taking a saying from tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
LOL - you know that perception of what you say is just as important as what you think you said.Quote:
No. But if you want to decide for me what I said or meant, feel free. I'm not going to argue that.
Someone is having difficultly following - one can not make a generalization about an individual. It is easily disproven especially when one speaks without knowledge of the situation. You have done so and you continue to dig yourself deeper into your untenable positon.Quote:
I never said it's valid each and every time, just often enough for it to be taken into consideration. Don't argue points I'd never made, it doesn't make sense. I see you're having problems so let me try to explain in more simple terms. Let's say I make a statement "In Russia people are poor" and you are trying to refute my claim by saying "It's not true, Roman Abramovich has 50-60 billions". I know that Roman Abramovich has loads of money, and that there are millions of rich Russian citizens but that doesn't change the fact that generally standard of living in Russia is low. Do you understand? Or I can say "Chemotherapy helps people suffering from tumors". You can think of millions of examples where it didn't help but that doesn't mean that it doesn't help at all. I can make a claim that is generally true, or is true in most cases. It doesn't have to be true in 100% of cases.
As stated before making generalizations about individuals happen to be a poor arguement and easily defeated. Oh I understood your premise completely the first time, however the actions demonstrate that his eyesight wasn't bad, just that he exercised bad judgement. Your stuck on defending a generalization that you spoke of without thinking through the fact that the event involves an individual.Quote:
My point was based on a simple logical premise:
A big portion of people over 60 have problems with their eyesight, with hand-eye coordination etc...
Mr. X is over 60
Therefore there is a decent chance that Mr. X could have problems with his eyesight.
Understand? Comprende? Verstehen Sie?
LOL your stuck on the wrong arguement once again. Rather amusing dicussing poor eyesight of a man who happen to shoot 3 times and kill two men. Again eyesight has nothing to do with the situation - poor judgement is what caused the situation. So you want someone to lay off your tangent maybe you should think about withdrawing the tangent arguement in the first place.Quote:
No, it doesn't mean that in 100% of cases people don't aim properly when they're over 60, I never said that, so lay off unless you can prove that peoples eyesight usually doesn't deteriorate in that age, because that was my point. And when there are other peoples lives at stake, even 10% is enough for me to make a case. I don't want to think about whether my kid is going to be close when tenth trigger happy idiot refuse to listen to the police and goes on a killing spree. As I said in my first post, they should lock him up and throw away the key.
I'm not going to bother replying to DevDave's nonsense, because he's just doing his usual trolling. But PJ, I ask you honestly if you really believe this was justice. That it's okay to murder people who are stealing from you, even if they clearly pose no thread of harm to you. And if you answer is still "yes," then my next question is how far do you take it?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
If this scenario had been the same (i.e. criminals fleeing from the scene with stolen goods), but instead of a good old boy from Texas doing the shooting, it was a Korean grocery store owner in LA, and intstead of a couple of illegal Mexicans doing the running, it was a couple of middle class 12 year old kids who were shoplifting some candy for the thrill of it, would you still say justice had been done?
Sorry, but point 4 just made me laugh so hard I almost busted a gut. Let me be perfectly clear:Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
If you aim a shotgun at somebody and pull the trigger, you either:
1) Intend to kill them,
or
2) should not be allowed to own a shotgun (ar any type of firearm) because you are so woefully ignorant of the properties of a shotgun that you thought you could execute a surgeon-like wounding shot with your shotgun.
I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the gist of that story. Anyway, PJ, the main point of it is that you have a fine sense of right and wrong, but not the faintest idea of what justice is about. I often share your gut feeling about a subject, but the social and political concepts which you derive from that gut feeling must never, ever become reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Unfortunatley they did, once upon a time.
Do they castrate the men in the UK after they procreate or are all the new Brits born from test tubes?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Man-up...
Oh and LG, my Father goes to the range 2 to 3 times a week. He practices with pistols, shotguns, and assault riffels. He also does competition combat shooting. I would want to :daisy: with my 63 year old Pops. Believe me, the armed citizen in the States knows how to use their weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Yo Goofy, I love you anyway.:yes:
damn quoted the worng post...
Gimme a break Goofwad. Everyone who's played Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2 knows that you can perform deft amputation surgery on people using a shotgun. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
:balloon2:
Is that what it takes? I initially spoke bollox. There you go. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that would be all for tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Your silence is telling...Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
:yes:
~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Goofball, that's a very different situation. Here we had two adult career criminals, robbing to enrich themselves. A far cry from two kids robbing candy for the thrill of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Even then, though, I wouldn't be too sad if people were shot while looting.
CR
So robbers need to show their ID to determine wether you can shoot them in the back or not?Quote:
Goofball, that's a very different situation. Here we had two adult career criminals, robbing to enrich themselves. A far cry from two kids robbing candy for the thrill of it.
No , there is no requirement for ID , if it is OK to shoot a thief it is OK to shoot a thief .Quote:
So robbers need to show their ID to determine wether you can shoot them in the back or not?
Little acorns and all that , exterminate them .
There is no point in allowing people to have guns and the right to shoot thieves if you attempt to deny them the right to use their guns to shoot thieves .
I reckon this law should be expanded , next time someone cuts you off on a road shoot the bugger , his actions have threatened both you and your property so its only right , after all driving like an idiot is breaking the law isn't it so no one will complain the removal of another criminal from the gene pool , an obvious result of this will be more courteous drivers which has to be a good thing for the whole nation and it will make the roads safer for children .... please think of the little children , well apart from them little jay-walking scum who cause people to brake hard threatening both the safety of drivers and the loss of valuable tire tread , they should be shot too .
I would suggest that they were just run over but some of them buggers are quite sturdy and can damage the bodywork , so it has to be shooting , its only right .
So you support the death penalty for petty theft...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Maybe he was hoping to avoid something like this.
He was not afraid of his life. He was afraid they would get away.Quote:
Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."
Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."
Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"
Dispatcher: "That's alright."
Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."
No. There is a difference, though, in shooting someone who is in the act of robbing you and someone who has been caught and convicted of burglary. As Dâriûsh pointed out, burglaries can turn out very bad for the victims in ways quite beyond loss of possessions.Quote:
So you support the death penalty for petty theft...?
Yup, and he was within the law to stop them with force.Quote:
He was not afraid of his life. He was afraid they would get away.
CR
Not in this case. The only thing at risk here was a TV-set. The man was in absolutely no danger at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
These guys were executed for the spot for committing burglary, they were not killed because they posed a threat. To support this and not support the death penalty on the same crime is hypocrisy.
I don't support the death penalty at all except in wartime, and yet I still believe a person has the right to shoot to kill a home invader. It's not the death penalty, and it's not murder. It's defence of your personal property and possessions. Police are allowed to shoot to kill in countries that don't have an official death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Shoot and kill a home invader? That's nbot what this is about. This is about shooting down two burglars who posed absolutely no threat to prevent them from getting away with their loot. This is an execution, plain and simple. Not even close to self-defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
They were on his property with stolen goods.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars