You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?
There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
But will they be as fun or memorable? I know it'is nonsense until it happens.
If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places. The less resistance there is to home invasion the less safe everyone is.
You guys believe that if someone enters your home to steal or whatever else, you should be charged with murder and imprisoned in the event of their violent death? You are nuts and unethical. You are the oppressive tyranny that everyone is afraid of. I know this is different because it took place outside, but you don't know about his relationship with those neighbors.
Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 07-07-2008 at 19:23.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
*looks at US crime statistics*
You might want to reconsider that opinion
Yes, in a functioning court system, even the most evil villain gets a chance to defend himself, and most certainly small-time burglars. Not sure why that sickens you though...Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.
Last edited by HoreTore; 07-07-2008 at 19:29.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Blame crime on low median income and opportunity. Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.
If I'm confused, when do we use the firearms which we keep for protection? Who is it meant to protect.
If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 07-07-2008 at 19:41.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
A bank robbery tends to be an armed robbery, i.e. victims are usually threatened with a gun - which is very different from a situation where burglars/thieves are in the process of leaving the scene with loot.
Apart from that the idea that you get a "clear shot" during a bank robbery (i.e. you can make absolutely sure that the robber is incapacitated and has no chance to harm bystanders before and after you make your shot) seems very hypothetical.
BTW, where I live people working at a bank are strongly encouraged to simply hand over the money and to only activate the silent alarm - instead of trying to play the hero.
That's the ROE of everyone except army personnel and in a few cases the police in this country. Give the guy with the weapon what he wants as quickly as possible, so that he leaves as soon as possible. Do not risk life or health over material stuff.
I'd hit a boss who told me to put my life at risk to protect a few thousand bucks.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Life, Liberty, and Property are not separate rights, but facets of the same inalienable right.
To defend one's own property IS to defend one's self.
The legalized inability to defend one's property is tyranny.
The criminals involved had their own right to life and property, but not at the expense of another's right. In attempting to contravene another's right to his property, they put their own rights in abeyance. When confronted, had they put down the man's personal property and exited his real property promptly, then the shotgunner would have been wrong to kill them.
The failure to defend one's property, or for the state to abet and condone such defense, is a means to chaos.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Hahaha. I'm sure that hardly anybody would do that. You would have to be dealing with somebody who was totally insane (and awesome) to react so fast that he could not only have known what was going on, gotten a weapon and decided that a middle aged woman who was fleeing with stockings was an imminent threat and a target for deadly justice.
You are comparing 2 immigrant black guys who were breaking into a home in broad daylight and did not respond to a weapon held by a neighbor with a soccer mom mall shoplifter. If you think that comparison is appropriate, I'll disagree.
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 07-07-2008 at 21:13.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.
In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.
The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.
In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 07-07-2008 at 21:23.
Who wants to live in a country full of crazy jerks in unknown houses?Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You have dug a hole for yourself that is now big enough to fall into. No wonder it makes you sick. It is no use blaming Tribesman and others for the fact that you are so confused on this issue.
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
Bookmarks